Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Research Service
Farm Service Agency
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Fiscal Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion damage on the outer diameter chrome surface of the horizontal stabilizer pivot pins. Micro-cracks in the chrome plating of the pivot pin, some of which extended into the base metal, were also reported. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a fractured horizontal stabilizer pivot pin. This AD requires replacing the existing horizontal stabilizer pivot pins with new or reworked pivot pins having improved corrosion resistance, doing repetitive inspections after installing the pivot pins, and doing corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured horizontal stabilizer pivot pin, which may cause excessive horizontal stabilizer freeplay and structural damage significant enough to result in loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective June 29, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 29, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
James Sutherland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6533; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 76066, December 6, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.
FedEx and All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that the release date of the AD be postponed until Revision 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018 is issued. FedEx stated that the horizontal stabilizer jacking tool used for the pivot pin removal/installation procedure, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, dated July 27, 2011, is being re-designed, and suggested that the release date of the AD be postponed until re-design of the tool is completed and Revision 1 is issued. ANA noted that Boeing does not recommend accomplishing Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, dated July 27, 2011, until the anti-rotation plates and jacking tool are available.
We do not agree to postpone issuing the final rule, because Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012. That service bulletin includes the new anti-rotation plates, and, as an alternative to having the new anti-rotation plates, a procedure for reworking the existing anti-rotation plates. The pin removal tool is an optional tool allowing operators an alternate method to remove the horizontal stabilizer pivot pins without the jacking tool. The existing tool is applicable to line numbers 1 through 40, and Boeing has issued rework instructions for the operators to modify existing tools for all Model 777 airplanes. The scope of this AD has not been expanded. We have updated the references in paragraphs (c), (g), (h), and (i) of this AD accordingly. In paragraph (j) of this AD, we are giving credit for actions done using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, dated July 27, 2011.
The Repeat Interval columns of tables 2 and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012, are corrected to include the phrase “after the most recent inspection.” Therefore, we have removed the exception stated in paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM (76 FR 76066, December 6, 2011).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 76066, December 6, 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 76066, December 6, 2011).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 155 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these 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.
(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 29, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, –300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion damage on the outer diameter chrome surface of the horizontal stabilizer pivot pins. Micro-cracks in the chrome plating of the pivot pins, some of which extended into the base metal, were also reported. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured horizontal stabilizer pivot pin, which may cause excessive horizontal stabilizer freeplay and structural damage significant enough to result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Replace the pivot pins of the horizontal stabilizer with new or reworked pivot pins, including replacing the spacer with a new spacer or with one that has been determined to be without corrosion damage or other irregularities; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012: Do detailed inspections for cracks, corrosion damage, or other irregularity of the outer and inner pivot pins; and an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the outer pivot pins; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012. Corrective actions must be done before further flight. Repeat the inspections at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012.
Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time “after the effective date of this AD.”
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, dated July 27, 2011.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact James Sutherland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6533; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0018, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (type certificate previously held by The New Piper Aircraft Inc.) Models PA–31T and PA–31T1 airplanes. That AD currently requires correcting a model identification error on the aircraft data plate. Since we issued that AD, we have become aware that some owner/operators of the affected airplanes modified the aircraft data plate in error because of confusion in the serial number applicability. Because of the confusion, the manufacturer has issued new service information to clarify affected airplane serial numbers. This new AD requires determining the airplane model based on the serial number and modifying the aircraft data plate to properly identify the airplane model. This new AD also requires doing a detailed search for all applicable airworthiness related documents that apply to any airplane that has an incorrectly marked data plate and take necessary corrective actions based on the search findings. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 29, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 29, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567–4361; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 80–11–06, amendment 39–3776 (45 FR 35309, May 27, 1980). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 14316, March 9, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 14316, March 9, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 14316, March 9, 2012).
We estimate that this AD affects 158 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modification and/or records search that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need modification:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 29, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 80–11–06, Amendment 39–3776 (45 FR 35309, May 27, 1980).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1)
(2)
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 1100, Placards and Markings.
This AD was prompted by reports that some owner/operators of the affected airplanes modified the aircraft data plate in error because of confusion in the serial number applicability. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the next 100 hours after June 29, 2012 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the markings on the aircraft data plate. Do the inspection following Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1235, dated November 3, 2011.
(1) If the aircraft data plate is correctly marked, make a logbook entry showing compliance with this AD, and no further action is required.
(2) If the aircraft data plate is incorrectly marked, continue with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, modify the aircraft data plate following Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1235, dated November 3, 2011.
Before further flight after the modification required in paragraph (h) of this AD:
(1) Do a detailed search of the aircraft maintenance records and documents to include, but not limited to, ADs, special airworthiness information bulletins (SAIBs), service bulletins (SBs), and other service documents; installed supplemental type certificates (STCs) and parts manufacturing approval (PMAs); and instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs). Each document found must be assessed to ensure proper actions have been made to maintain airworthiness as affected by the model number of the aircraft. Part 135 operators and other operators utilizing FAA-approved maintenance programs will need to address changes to their inspection programs and related documents.
Although some of the above documents may not be mandatory for compliance, it is still necessary to evaluate them to ensure that any voluntary compliance does not negatively affect the airworthiness of the airplane.
(2) Identify all discrepant conditions for misidentified aircraft and coordinate with the geographic Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) to determine necessary corrective actions. Also, coordinate with the geographic FSDO to arrange for revisions to the airworthiness certificate, registration, and other potential document/certificate revisions. The following is a list of example discrepant conditions that may be found during the records search:
(i) An AD was complied with that was applicable to the incorrect model, but not applicable to the corrected model.
(ii) A required AD for the corrected model was not complied with.
(iii) A maintenance action was performed that was recommended, but not mandatory, for the incorrect model, but not applicable to the corrected model.
(iv) A PMA part was installed that was applicable for the incorrect model, but not for the corrected model.
(v) An STC was installed that was applicable for the incorrect model, but not for the corrected model.
(vi) An STC was installed that was applicable for both the incorrect and corrected model, but all related, applicable ADs for the corrected model were not complied with.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 80–11–06 (45 FR 35309, May 27, 1980), are approved as AMOCs for this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; email:
(1) You must use Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1235, dated November 3, 2011, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567–4361; Internet:
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC) Model 427 helicopters which requires replacing certain tailboom attachment hardware and at certain intervals thereafter, determining the torque of that tailboom attachment hardware. This AD was prompted by a review of the tailboom attachment installation, which revealed that the torque value of the bolts specified in the BHTC Model 427 Maintenance Manual and applied during manufacturing was incorrect and exceeded the torque range recommended for the bolts. The actions are intended to prevent an over-torque of the tailboom attachment bolt (bolt), bolt failure, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective June 29, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of June 29, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
On February 3, 2012, at 77 FR 5425, the
• Remove the left upper bolt, washers, and nut. Install the new bolt, part number (P/N) NAS627–27; washers, P/N 140–007–29S25E6 and P/N NAS1149G0732P; and new nut, P/N 42FLW–720. Run the nut onto the threads of the mating bolt with a torque wrench and measure the existing tare torque. Any bolt and nut used must have a minimum tare torque value of 14 inch/lbs. Torque the nut and coat the bolt head, nut, and washers with appropriate corrosion preventive compound to seal the joint. Repeat these actions at the three remaining bolt locations.
• After installation of the new attachment hardware, at intervals of not less than 1 hour TIS but not exceeding 5 hours TIS, determine the torque of each nut until torque stabilizes at each attachment location. Thereafter, determine the torque of each nut at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS.
The proposed requirements were intended to prevent an over-torque of the bolt, bolt failure, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued Canadian AD CF–2010–32, dated September 30, 2010 (AD CF–2010–32), to correct an unsafe condition for the BHTC Model 427 helicopters, serial numbers (S/Ns) 56001 through 56084, and S/Ns 58001 and 58002. TC advises that a review of the tailboom attachment installation determined that the torque value of the bolts specified in the BHTC Model 427 Maintenance Manual and applied during manufacturing exceeded the torque range recommended for the bolts. They state that this situation, if not corrected, could lead to a bolt failure, detachment of the tailboom, and loss of control of the helicopter.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
This helicopter model has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TC, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the TC AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TC and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The differences between this AD and the TC AD are as follows:
• The TC AD applies to the BHTC Model 427 helicopter, serial numbers 58001 and 58002; however, this AD is not applicable to the BHTC Model 427 helicopters with these serial numbers because they are not eligible for an FAA Certificate of Airworthiness.
BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 427–10–31, dated March 1, 2010 (ASB), which specifies installing new attachment hardware with a reduced torque value. This ASB specifies determining the torque of the newly installed bolts and nuts every 1 to 5 flight hours until torque stabilizes at all locations, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours. TC classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD CF–2010–32 to ensure
We estimate that this AD will affect 28 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. It will take about 2.0 work-hours per helicopter to replace the hardware and 1.0 work-hour per helicopter to determine the recurring torque value at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $488 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the first year total cost per helicopter to be $913, and the total cost impact on U.S. operators to be $25,564. This estimated total cost assumes attachment hardware will be replaced on all affected helicopters, the torque will be considered stabilized after one torquing, and the recurring 300 hour TIS torque determination will be accomplished twice a year.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model 427 helicopters, serial numbers 56001 through 56084, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as an over-torque of the tailboom attachment bolt (bolt). This condition could result in bolt failure, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective June 29, 2012.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 90 days, whichever occurs first, replace the tailboom attachment hardware (attachment hardware) as follows:
(i) Remove the left upper bolt, washers, and nut.
(ii) Install a new bolt, part number (P/N) NAS627–27; washer, P/N 140–007–29S25E6; washer(s), P/N NAS1149G0732P; and new nut, P/N 42FLW–720 in accordance with paragraphs 5.a) through 5.d) of the Accomplishment Instructions in BHTC Alert Service Bulletin No. 427–10–31, dated March 1, 2010 (ASB).
(iii) Run the nut onto the threads of the mating bolt with a torque wrench and measure the existing tare torque. Any bolt and nut used must have a minimum tare torque value of 14 inch/lbs.
(iv) Torque the nut in accordance with paragraphs 5.f) and 5.g) of the ASB.
(v) Coat the bolt head, nut, and washers with appropriate corrosion preventive compound to seal the joint.
(vi) At each remaining attachment location, remove the bolt, washers, and nut, and install the attachment hardware in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) through (e)(1)(v) of this AD.
(2) After installation of the new attachment hardware, at intervals of not less than 1 hour TIS but not exceeding 5 hours TIS, determine the torque of each nut until the torque stabilizes at each attachment location. Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, determine the torque of each nut. When determining the torque, it is acceptable to use the minimum tare torque of 14 inch/lbs (1.58 Nm) added to the minimum torque range of 550–560 inch/lbs (62.1 to 63.3 Nm). If you remove corrosion preventative compound during the torquing, recoat the bolt head, nut, and washers with appropriate corrosion preventive compound to seal the joint.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD CF–2010–32, dated September 30, 2010.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302, Rotorcraft Tailboom.
(1) You must use the specified portions of BHTC Alert Service Bulletin No. 427–10–31, dated March 1, 2010, to do the specified actions required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–
(3) You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137 or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702); CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705); CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900); and CL–600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of deformation of the pressure regulator on the oxygen cylinder, which was attributed to batches of raw material that did not meet required tensile strength. This AD requires an inspection to determine if certain oxygen pressure regulators are installed, and replacement of oxygen cylinder and regulator assemblies (CRAs) containing pressure regulators that do not meet required material properties. We are issuing this AD to prevent elongation of the pressure regulator neck, which could result in rupture of the oxygen cylinder, and in the case of cabin depressurization, oxygen would not be available when required.
This AD becomes effective June 29, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 29, 2012.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7318; fax (516) 794–5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
During a routine inspection, deformation was found at the neck of the pressure regulator body on the oxygen Cylinder and Regulator Assemblies (CRA) of a BD–700–1A11 aeroplane.
An investigation by the vendor, Avox Systems Inc., revealed that the deformation was attributed to two (2) batches of raw material that did not meet the required tensile strength. This may cause elongation of the pressure regulator neck, which could result in rupture of the oxygen cylinder, and in the case of cabin depressurization, oxygen would not be available when required.
Although there have been no reported failures to date on any CL–600–2C10, CL–600–2D15, CL–600–2D24 or CL–600–2E25 aeroplanes, similar oxygen pressure regulators, Part Number (P/N) 806370–06, could also be installed on the aeroplanes listed in the Applicability section of this [Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA)] directive.
This [TCCA] directive mandates [an inspection for certain serial numbers, and if necessary, replacement of the affected oxygen CRA in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–35–011, dated July 5, 2011; and] the replacement of oxygen CRAs containing pressure regulators that do not meet the required material properties.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 2662, January 19, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 2662, January 19, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 2662, January 19, 2012).
We estimate that this AD will affect 263 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $44,710, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $85 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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,
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 29, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10999 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15990 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19990 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35: Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by reports of deformation of the pressure regulator on the oxygen cylinder, which was attributed to batches of raw material that did not meet required tensile strength. We are issuing this AD to prevent elongation of the pressure regulator neck, which could result in rupture of the oxygen cylinder, and in the case of cabin depressurization, oxygen would not be available when required.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 1,800 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Inspect the serial number of each oxygen pressure regulator, part number (P/N) 806370–06, to determine if the serial number of the regulator is listed in “Table 2: Regulators” of paragraph 1.A.(1) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–35–011, dated July 5, 2011. If the serial number of the oxygen pressure regulator, P/N 806370–06, is listed in “Table 2: Regulators” of paragraph 1.A.(1) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–35–011, dated July 5, 2011: Before further flight, replace the affected oxygen cylinder and regulator assembly (CRA), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–35–011, dated July 5, 2011.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen pressure regulator, P/N 806370–06, having a serial number listed in “Table 2: Regulators” of paragraph 1.A.(1) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–35–011, dated July 5, 2011, on any airplane unless the serial number of the CRA and pressure regulator have a suffix “A” beside the serial number.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2011–28, dated July 28, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–35–011, dated July 5, 2011; for related information.
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–35–011, dated July 5, 2011.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202–741–6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for all RR RB211–Trent 553–61, 553A2–61, 556–61, 556A2–61, 556B–61, 556B2–61, 560–61, 560A2–61, 768–60, 772–60, 772B–60, 875–17, 877–17, 884–17, 884B–17, 892–17, 892B–17, and 895–17 turbofan engines. That AD currently requires inspecting the intermediate-pressure (IP) compressor rotor shaft rear balance land for cracks. This new AD continues to require initial inspections, adds additional inspections, and a mandatory terminating action. This AD was prompted by additional cracking on RB211–Trent 700 and RB211–Trent 800 IP compressor rotor shafts found since the existing AD was issued. We are issuing this AD to detect cracking on the IP compressor rotor rear balance land. IP compressor rotor rear balance land cracking can lead to uncontained failure of the rotor and damage to the airplane.
This AD is effective June 29, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 29, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; phone: 011–44–1332–242424; fax: 011–44–1332–245418; or email from
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; phone: 781–238–7143; fax: 781–238–7199; email:
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008–18–08, Amendment 39–15665 (73 FR 52201, September 9, 2008). That AD applies to the specified products. The SNPRM 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.
One commenter, Rolls-Royce plc, requested that we change “Since we issued that NPRM, RR has ceased efforts to develop an on-wing ECI” to “Since we issued that NPRM, RR has ceased efforts to develop an on-wing ultrasonic inspection.” The commenter stated that they were developing an ultrasonic inspection, not an ECI.
We agree that we called out the wrong type of inspection in that part of the SNPRM preamble. However, that information is not repeated in the final rule. We did not change the AD.
Two commenters, The Boeing Company and Rolls-Royce plc, requested that we change the service bulletin number in paragraph (k)(2)(iii), from RR Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211–72–AG401, Revision 2, dated July 5, 2011, to RR ASB No. RB.211–72–AG402, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2011. They also requested that we correct the paragraph (j)(1) to (j)(2) in that same paragraph.
We partially agree. We agree that we misnumbered the service bulletins. We do not agree to correct them because we deleted paragraph (k)(2)(iii) from the final AD.
Rolls-Royce plc requested that we clarify that re-balancing eliminates the requirement for all repetitive inspections.
We agree. We changed the AD so that the mandatory terminating action eliminates the requirements for both on-wing and in-shop repetitive inspections.
American Airlines requested that we make it clear that the inspections required in paragraph 2(f)(1) of the SNPRM are acceptable for use whether the engine is on-wing (installed on an airplane) or in-shop, but not during maintenance defined as a shop visit by the AD. American also recommended that we re-arrange the inspections in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) so that they are aligned with on-wing and off-wing maintenance activities.
We agree. We clarified the AD by eliminating the headings of “On-Wing Inspections” and “In-Shop Inspections” from paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (g)(1), and (g)(2) of the AD. We also re-numbered the sub-paragraphs under paragraph (f), to (1), (2) and (3), without sub-headings. We also re-numbered the sub-paragraphs under paragraph (g) to (1), (2) and (3), without sub-headings.
American Airlines requested that in the Mandatory Terminating Action paragraph (j) of the SNPRM, we delete the requirement to re-balance the engines in accordance with ASBs No. RB.211–72–AG401 and No. RB.211–72–AG402. Instead, require inspection of the IP compressor rear shaft balance land, prohibit re-installation of balance weights on the IP compressor rear shaft balance land, simplify paragraph (k) to combine the previous credit inspection paragraphs, and delete the re-balancing paragraph.
The commenter stated that removal of the unsafe condition is accomplished by removal of the IP compressor balance weights from the rear balance land, which stops the fretting that causes the compressor rear shaft to crack.
We partially agree. We agree with eliminating the requirement to re-balance the engine in accordance with ASBs No. RB.211–72–AG401 and No. RB.211–72–AG402, and removing the associated previous credit paragraphs because permanently removing the existing balance weights from the IP compressor rotor rear shaft balance land eliminates the unsafe condition. Accordingly, we changed the AD by eliminating the requirement to re-balance the engine in accordance with ASBs No. RB.211–72–AG401 and No. RB.211–72–AG402. We do not agree with further simplifying paragraph (k) because we maintained all of the sub-paragraphs for paragraph (f) and (g).
We also added the following Prohibition Statement: “Once you have accomplished paragraphs (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, do not re-install balance weights on the compressor rear shaft balance land.”
We also deleted previous credit for re-balancing paragraphs (k)(1)(iii) and (k)(2)(iii) from the AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
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 about 136 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3.5 work-hours per engine to perform the on-wing/in-shop visual inspections, about 2.5 work-hours per engine to perform the in-shop eddy current inspections, and about 8 work-hours to rebalance the IP compressor. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $470,696.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 29, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2008–18–08, Amendment 39–15665, (73 FR 52201, September 9, 2008).
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211–Trent 553–61, 553A2–61, 556–61, 556A2–61, 556B–61, 556B2–61, 560–61, 560A2–61, 768–60, 772–60, 772B–60, 875–17, 877–17, 884–17, 884B–17, 892–17, 892B–17, and 895–17 turbofan engines.
This AD was prompted by additional cracking on RB211–Trent 700 and RB211–Trent 800 IP compressor rotor shafts found since the existing AD 2008–18–08, Amendment 39–15665, (73 FR 52201, September 9, 2008) was issued. We are issuing this AD to detect cracking on the IP compressor rotor rear balance land. IP compressor rotor rear balance land cracking can lead to uncontained failure of the rotor and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 625 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD, borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land. Use RB211 Trent 700 Series Propulsion System Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin (NMASB) No. RB.211–72–AG270, Revision 4, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through 3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.
(2) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 625 cycles-since-last inspection (CSLI). You may count CSLI from the last borescope inspection or the last eddy current inspection (ECI), whichever has occurred last.
(3) At each shop visit after the effective date of this AD, perform an ECI and visually inspect the IP compressor rotor rear shaft balance land, and visually inspect the balance weights. Use RB211 Trent 700 and 800 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211–72–AG085, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011, sections 3.A. through 3.D.(3)(b)(v), except paragraphs 3.D.(3)(a)(ii) and 3.D.(3)(b)(iii), to do the inspections.
(1) Within 475 CIS after the effective date of this AD, borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land. Use RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion System NMASB No. RB.211–72–AG264, Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(b) through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through 3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.
(2) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 475 CSLI. You may count CSLI from the last borescope inspection or the last ECI, whichever has occurred last.
(3) At each shop visit, perform an ECI and visually inspect the IP compressor rotor rear shaft balance land, and visually inspect the balance weights. Use RB211 Trent 700 and 800 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No.
At each shop visit, perform an ECI of the IP compressor rotor shaft and visually inspect the balance weights. Use RB211 Trent 500 Series Propulsion System NMASB No. RB.211–72–AF260, Revision 5, dated July 7, 2011 sections 3.A. through 3.B.(3)(a)(iii) to do the visual inspection, or RB211 Trent 500 and 900 Series Propulsion Systems Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211–72–G448, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2011 section 3.D.(1) through 3.D.(14) to do the ECI.
For the purposes of this AD, a shop visit is defined as introduction of an engine into a shop, and disassembly sufficient to expose the IP compressor module rear face.
(1) Perform mandatory terminating action to the in-shop repetitive inspections in paragraph (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD. At the next shop visit in which any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried out on the IP compressor, modify RB211–Trent 700 engines by removing the existing IP compressor balance weights.
(2) Perform mandatory terminating action to the in-shop repetitive inspections in paragraph (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD. At the next shop visit in which any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried out on the IP compressor, modify RB211–Trent 800 engines by removing the existing IP compressor balance weights.
(3) Once you have accomplished paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, do not re-install balance weights on the IP compressor rear shaft balance land.
(1) For RB211–Trent 700 series engines:
(i) If you borescope inspected your RB211–Trent 700 series engine using RB211 Trent 700 Series Propulsion System NMASB No. RB.211–72–AG270, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009, or Revision 2, dated December 21, 2010, or Revision 3, dated February 25, 2011, before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the requirements of paragraph f(1) of this AD.
(ii) If you performed the ECI and visual inspection of your RB211–Trent 700 series engines using RB211 Trent 700 and 800 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211–72–AG085, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2010, before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the ECI and visual inspections required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
(2) For RB211–Trent 800 series engines:
(i) If you borescope inspected your RB211–Trent 800 series engine using RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion System NMASB No. RB.211–72–AG264, Revision 3, dated December 21, 2010, or Revision 4, dated February 25, 2011, before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(ii) If you performed the ECI and visual inspection of your RB211–Trent 800 series engines using RB211 Trent 700 and 800 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211–72–AG085, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2010, before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the ECI and visual inspections required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.
(3) For RB211–Trent 500 series engines:
(i) If you performed the ECI of your RB211–Trent 500 series engines using RB211 Trent 500 Series Propulsion System NMASB No. RB.211–72–AF260, Revision 4, dated July 28, 2009, before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the ECIs required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(ii) If you performed the in-shop visual inspection of your RB211–Trent 500 series engines using RB211 Trent 500 and 900 Series Propulsion Systems NMSB No. RB.211–72–G448, Revision 2, dated December 23, 2010, before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the in-shop visual inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; phone: 781–238–7143; fax: 781–238–7199; email:
(2) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2011–0221, dated November 14, 2011, also pertains to the subject of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the following service information.
(2) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 700 Series Propulsion System Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AG270, Revision 4, dated March 21, 2011.
(ii) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 700 and 800 Series Propulsion Systems Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AG085, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011.
(iii) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion System Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AG264, Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011.
(iv) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 500 Series Propulsion System Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AF260, Revision 5, dated July 7, 2011.
(v) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 500 and 900 Series Propulsion Systems Non-Modification Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–G448, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2011.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; phone: 011–44–1332–242424; fax: 011–44–1332–245418; or email from
(4) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
(5) You may also review copies of the service information that is IBR 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 25, 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 25, 2012.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA–200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS–420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954–4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P–NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P–NOTAMs.
The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P–NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721–44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
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 25, 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 25, 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
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260–4, 8260–5, 8260–15A, and 8260–15B when required by an entry on 8260–15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which 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.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
Import Administration (“IA”) issues this final rule withdrawing regulations pertaining to imports of cotton woven fabric and short supply procedures. Both sets of regulations are obsolete: The tariff quota on cotton woven fabric expired in 2009, and the short supply voluntary restraints have not affected U.S. trade for over 19 years. The removal of these regulations will simplify research into the trade laws and eliminate confusion for both United States importers and foreign exporters.
Robert Goodyear, Director, Office of Operations Support, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, at 202–482–5194 or Scott McBride, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, at (202) 482–6292.
President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13563 on January 18, 2011, titled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The Executive Order directed all agencies, to “develop and submit” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs plans under which agencies, “consistent with law and [their] resources and regulatory priorities,” will “periodically review [their] existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.” The Executive Order states that one of the purposes of implementing a program to perform a “retrospective analysis of existing rules” is to withdraw regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.”
In August 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules. <
The regulatory provisions titled “Imports of Cotton Woven Fabric,” codified at 15 CFR 336.1–336.5, are no longer relevant. They were implemented pursuant to the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, at Division C, Title IV, Section 406(b)(1) (Pub. L. 109–432) (codified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, per 19 U.S.C. 3004) (2006). The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 set forth tariff rate quotas for cotton woven fabric and the regulatory provisions at issue provide for the administration of allocations of those quotas by IA. The interim regulations were issued in 2007, and then adopted without change, with an effective date of July 10, 2008.
The regulations pertaining to “Short Supply Procedures,” which are codified at 19 CFR 357.101–111, are also no longer relevant. These regulations were issued pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Steel Trade Liberalization Program Implementation Act (Pub. L. 101–221) (1989).
It has been determined that this final rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255) (August 10, 1999).
ITA has determined pursuant to 21 CFR 25.30 that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601
Imports, Quotas, Reporting and recordkeeping, Tariffs, Textiles.
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steel.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the enforcement period and location of safety zone regulations for a recurring fireworks display within the Fifth Coast Guard District. This regulation applies to two recurring fireworks display events that take place at Washington, NC. Safety zone regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Pamlico River and Tar River near Washington, NC, during the event.
This rule will be effective from June 8, 2012 until July 5, 2012 and enforced on June 8, 2012 and July 4, 2012 from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2012–0097 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Joseph Edge, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Atlantic Beach, NC; telephone 252–247–4525, email
On March 13, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone, Temporary Change for Recurring Fireworks Display within the Fifth Coast Guard District, Pamlico River and Tar River; Washington, NC in the
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
Fireworks display events are frequently held on or adjacent to navigable waters within the boundary of
This regulation temporarily changes the enforcement period and geographic location for a safety zone for two annually recurring fireworks events, described at (d)(7) of the Table to 33 CFR 165.506, that are normally scheduled to occur each year on the second Saturday in June and on the first Saturday after July 4th. This regulation applies to only the fireworks events listed in the Table to § 165.506, section (d)7.
On June 8, 2012 and July 4, 2012, the Town of Washington, NC will sponsor their annual fireworks events. These events will take place in Washington, NC on the waters of the Pamlico River. The regulation at 33 CFR 165.506 is enforced annually for this event. Also, a fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the fireworks. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 8, 2012 and July 4, 2012. The regulation at 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the duration of the event. Vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
The Table to § 165.506, event (d)(7) establishes the enforcement date and geographic location for the fireworks events held in Washington, North Carolina. This regulation temporarily changes the enforcement location to latitude 35°32′25″ N, longitude 077°03′42″ W. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 8, 2012 and July 4, 2012, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
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.
Although this regulation will restrict access to the area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will only be in effect from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 08, 2012 and July 4, 2012; (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly; (iii) although the safety zone will apply to the section of the Pamlico River and Tar River, vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone.
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 or operators of vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Pamlico River and Tar River from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 8, 2012 and July 4, 2012.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will only be in effect for three hours each day from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Although the safety zone will apply to a section of the Pamlico River, vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by 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
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) 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 this instruction. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone to protect the public from fireworks fallout. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the arrival, commissioning, and departure of the USS MISSISSIPPI. This security zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature during the arrival, commissioning, and departure of the USS MISSISSIPPI. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from May 23, 2012 to June 8, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2012–0333. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email LT Lenell J. Carson, Sector Mobile, Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251–441–5940, 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 there is insufficient time to publish a NPRM. Following a planning meeting on March 29, 2012 between the U.S Navy, U.S Coast Guard, local agencies, and port stakeholders, the Coast Guard determined that a temporary security zone is necessary during the arrival, commissioning ceremony (to be held on June 2, 2012), and departure of the USS MISSISSIPPI. Publishing a NPRM and delaying this rule's effective date would be impracticable because it would unnecessarily delay the USS MISSISSIPPI's schedule and commitments. Delaying or foregoing this necessary security zone would also be contrary to public interest. This is a scheduled public event surrounding the commissioning of a U.S. Naval vessel and immediate action is necessary to implement additional security measure to protect persons, vessels, and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.
For the same reasons, 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 USS MISSISSIPPI will be commissioned at the Port of Pascagoula, Pascagoula, MS on June 2, 2012. Scheduled events surround the commissioning ceremony will draw large crowds in or near the port. Additional security measures are necessary to protect persons, vessels, and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature during the arrival, commissioning, and departure of the USS MISSISSIPPI.
The COTP anticipates some impact on vessel traffic due to this regulation. However, this security zone is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property within the COTP Mobile zone.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the arrival, commissioning, and departure of the USS MISSISSIPPI. While the USS MISSISSIPPI is underway in the Pascagoula Harbor shoreward of the Horn Island Pass Lighted Buoy HI (RW “HI” Mo (A); Position 30–08–30.049 N, 088–38–40.125 W), the temporary security zone includes all waters within 100 yards of the USS MISSISSIPPI. When the USS MISSISSIPPI is moored in the Port of Pascagoula, the temporary security zone includes all waters within 25 yards of the USS MISSISSIPPI. Entry into these zones is prohibited to all vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically authorized by the COTP Mobile or a designated representative. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 251–441–5976.
The COTP Mobile or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of changes in the effective period for the security zone. This rule is effective from May 23, 2012 to June 8, 2012.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866
The security zone listed in this rule will only restrict vessel traffic from transiting a small portion of the Pascagoula Harbor and Pascagoula River while the USS MISSISSIPPI is transiting through the harbor and when moored in the Port of Pascagoula. The effect of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: (1) This rule will only affect vessel traffic for a short duration; (2) vessels may request permission from the COTP to transit through the security zone; and (3) the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal. Notifications to the marine community will be made through the Local Notices to Mariners and via Safety Broadcast Notices to Mariners. These notifications will allow the public to plan operations around the affected areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected areas during the arrival, commissioning, and departure of the USS MISSISSIPPI. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The zone is limited in size, is of short duration, and traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the COTP.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
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 will not call for a 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 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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 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.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
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 determined that 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 involves security during the arrival, commissioning, and departure of the USS MISSISSIPPI and is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in NEPA. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a categorical exclusion determination will be made available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) Within 100 yards of the USS MISSISSIPPI while underway shoreward of the Horn Island Pass Lighted Buoy HI (RW “HI” Mo (A); Position 30–08–30.049 N, 088–38–40.125 W).
(2) Within 25 yards of the USS MISSISSIPPI while moored in the Port of Pascagoula.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the security zones must request permission from the COTP Mobile or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF–FM channels 16 or by telephone at 251–441–5976.
(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Mobile or designated representative.
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce Safety Zones for fireworks displays and Special Local Regulations for swimming events in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the dates and times listed in the tables below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these regattas, fireworks displays and swim events. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.151 and 33 CFR 100.100 will be enforced during the dates and times listed in the Supplementary Information section.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer Joseph Graun, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, (203) 468–4544,
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.151 and special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.100 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Tables below. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the regulation will be enforced on the rain date indicated in the Tables below. These regulations were published in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.100 & 33 CFR 165.151, the fireworks displays, swimming event and regatta listed above are established as safety zones or special local regulations. During these enforcement periods, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the safety zones or special local regulations unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR part 100, 33 CFR part 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Postal Service
Final rule with phased implementation dates.
The Postal Service is revising the service standards for market-dominant mail products, as part of its Network Rationalization initiative. Some portions of the new standards will be implemented in two phases.
Wendy Hocking, Industry Engagement and Outreach, at 202–268–8149.
On September 21, 2011, the Postal Service published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (the Advance Notice) in the
On December 5, 2011, the Postal Service submitted a request to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for an advisory opinion on the service changes associated with Network Rationalization, in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3661(b).
Having considered comments responsive to the Proposed Rulemaking, informal advice that the Postal Service has received through other channels, and the results of its market research, the Postal Service has decided to implement Network Rationalization in a phased manner. The Postal Service believes that the initiative will help ensure its long-term viability, and that it complies with all applicable statutory requirements. This Notice explains the new rules and their phased implementation.
The Postal Service received 101 written comments in response to the Proposed Rulemaking. These responses came from a variety of sources, including retail and residential customers, businesses, periodicals publishers, mailer trade associations, postal unions, members of Congress, and others. As was the case for the Advance Notice, the majority of written comments received in response to the Proposed Rulemaking opposed Network Rationalization. Some commenters questioned various aspects of the initiative but ultimately supported it. A few supported it without reservation.
Commenters focused on the following concerns. They stated that the lengthened service standards would unreasonably burden many customers. They said, for example, that rural customers who depend on the Postal Service for vital deliveries, such as prescription medicines and paychecks, would be hurt, that businesses that receive remittance mail would suffer financial losses, and that periodicals would see their subscriptions decline. Commenters feared that the proposal could delay mailed election ballots from reaching their destinations, potentially causing some ballots not to be counted. Some mailers stated that it would not be possible for them to meet the new Critical Entry Times set forth in the Proposed Rulemaking. Overall, many commenters cautioned that Network Rationalization could accelerate mail volume declines, with customers abandoning the postal system for electronic alternatives. Accordingly, they suggested that the Postal Service achieve financial stability through other means, such as eliminating discounts, shifting to five-day or even three-day delivery, and seeking legislative relief from having to prefund the Retiree Health Benefits Fund.
Some commenters did not oppose the proposal but nevertheless questioned aspects of its planning, communication, and implementation. This was especially true for businesses and larger customers. For example, some characterized the Postal Service's current performance in meeting service standards as poor, and they wondered whether the Postal Service would improve performance under the new standards. Others expressed skepticism as to the Postal Service's ability to achieve its projected cost reductions. Moreover, they inferred that the initiative would shift costs to mailers, and asked why the Postal Service had not analyzed such cost impacts. Commenters also pointed out that increased costs to customers and decreased service levels are analogous to price increases. Some mailers expressed concerns about potentials for loading dock shortages and longer waiting times at mail entry locations, given the smaller number of mail processing facilities after implementation of Network Rationalization.
More generally, some commenters stated that the proposed implementation dates are too early, and they questioned the prudence of the Postal Service implementing the initiative before receiving the PRC's advisory opinion. In addition, some criticized the Postal Service's communication of its plans, particularly of details such as new mailing eligibility and software requirements.
A small minority of written comments supported Network Rationalization without reservation, encouraging the Postal Service to take whatever steps are necessary for it to remain a viable, self-supporting entity. One commenter noted that Network Rationalization could provide significant cost savings and could improve the attributable cost coverage of the Periodicals class of mail.
In addition to the written comments, the Postal Service received informal opinions and advice from commercial mailers, mailer associations, and members of Congress. The mailers and associations mostly supported Network Rationalization, while Congressional opinion was mixed.
After considering the formal rulemaking comments, the range of other informal advice it has received, and the results of its market research, and after considering the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3691 and other applicable provisions of title 39, the Postal Service has determined to implement Network Rationalization, but on a more gradual timeline than it initially envisioned. The Postal Service is adopting new rules for market-dominant service standards, with an interim version that will apply from July 1, 2012, through January 31, 2014, and a final version that will apply on February 1, 2014, and thereafter. From the outset, the Postal Service has understood that implementation of Network Rationalization will require more than one year. The phased
On July 1, 2012, coinciding with the effectiveness of the interim version of the new rules, the Postal Service will begin implementing the first phase of Network Rationalization. It will suspend Phase One from September 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, to avoid disrupting the fall election and holiday mailing cycles, and resume it thereafter. The Postal Service will begin implementing the second phase on February 1, 2014, coincident with the application of the final version of the new rules.
The interim version of the new rules differs from the final version in three respects: (1) The interim version applies an overnight service standard to all intra-Sectional Center Facility (SCF) First-Class Mail, regardless of the point of entry or level of preparation, whereas the final version applies it only to intra-SCF First-Class Mail pieces that are entered at the SCF and meet specified preparation and entry time requirements; (2) the interim version applies a two-day service standard to First-Class Mail pieces if there is a six-hour or less driving time between the pieces' origin Processing and Distribution Center or Facility (P&DC/F) and destination Area Distribution Center (ADC), whereas the final version applies it if there is a six-hour or less driving time between the pieces' origin P&DC/F and destination SCF; and (3) the interim version modifies the delivery day range for end-to-end Periodicals in the contiguous forty-eight states from the current one to nine days to two to nine days, while the final version modifies it further to three to nine days (under both the interim and final versions, there will continue to be an overnight service standard for qualifying destination-entry Periodicals).
Operationally, the principal benefit of the new rules is that they will allow the Postal Service to expand its nightly processing window, smoothing out the peak volume load over more of the workday, thereby reducing the number of processing locations needed in the network. Presently, the Postal Service's delivery point sequencing (DPS) operations are generally run for six and one-half hours per day, from 12:30 a.m. to 7 a.m. Once implementation of Phase One is complete, the DPS window will expand to up to ten hours, from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. This change will facilitate the consolidation of the mail processing operations of approximately 140 facilities. Then, once implementation of Phase Two is complete, the DPS window will expand to up to sixteen hours, from 12 p.m. to 4 a.m. This will make possible the consolidation of the mail processing operations of approximately 230 facilities (inclusive of the approximately 140 consolidated in Phase One).
As discussed in the sections below, the Postal Service is convinced that Network Rationalization is vital to its long-term viability. At the same time, the Postal Service is well aware that sudden changes to systems as complex as its mail processing network can precipitate unintended consequences. Accordingly, the Postal Service has decided on the extended, phased implementation schedule outlined above to help ensure that Network Rationalization proceeds in a steady, measured fashion, with a minimal level of disruption.
Of course, the Postal Service's phased implementation schedule by its nature builds in time for additional deliberation and consideration. As noted above, the Postal Service recognizes the possibility that subsequent events or changed circumstances could cause it at a future date to revisit the final version of the new rules that will apply beginning on February 1, 2014, and to alter or withdraw those rules through a new notice-and-comment rulemaking. At this time, however, the Postal Service expects to implement the new rules and Network Rationalization as set forth in this Notice.
As the Postal Service implements Network Rationalization, it will remain mindful of the concerns expressed by commenters and will work to minimize those concerns. In response to commenters who stated that Network Rationalization may lead to accelerated volume declines, the Postal Service notes that the initiative is largely focused on First-Class Mail, a mail class that has seen and will continue to see significant volume declines. These declines are linked, in large part, to electronic diversion, a secular trend that is outside the Postal Service's control. The Postal Service has conducted market research to estimate the additional volume that could be lost due to Network Rationalization, and it believes that the estimated losses are acceptable when compared to the initiative's likely benefits.
The Postal Service observes that the alternatives proposed by commenters would not, by themselves, restore the Postal Service to lasting financial viability. Furthermore, many of the suggested alternatives require the enactment of legislation. The Postal Service has diligently sought such legislation, particularly with regard to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund and five-day delivery, but progress has been slow, and the prospects for timely enactment, if any, remain unclear. On the revenue front, customers have strongly opposed the Postal Service's pursuit of an exigent rate increase, and the PRC has thus far rejected it. As for cost reductions outside of Network Rationalization, the Postal Service is pursuing other cost-saving initiatives simultaneously with Network Rationalization, but neither Network Rationalization nor any of the other initiatives is sufficient in itself to secure the Postal Service's financial stability. Rather, they are all necessary. And, even in the realm of mail processing, the Postal Service has continually pursued consolidation opportunities wherever feasible, but it is now reaching the limit of consolidations that can be effected without altering service standards nationwide.
Though it is true that Network Rationalization will burden some customers, most of these burdens can be minimized through relatively minor changes on the part of customers. For example, pharmaceutical companies can minimize gaps in prescription fulfillment by continuing to remind customers to place their refill orders in a timely manner. Likewise, customers who mail bill payments and are concerned that their payments may arrive late can mail their payments one or two days earlier than they do now. In addition, businesses that rely on remittance mail can still obtain overnight First-Class Mail service for their outgoing mail by meeting the new preparation and entry requirements outlined in Section VI below, and they can speed their receipt of incoming mail by using Caller Service at the destinating processing facility. Indeed, the Postal Service expects overnight Caller Service at destinating processing facilities to improve, given the larger mail processing operating windows.
The Postal Service believes that its cost savings estimates for Network Rationalization are, generally speaking, somewhat conservative, and it is confident that it can achieve the
Furthermore, the Postal Service would point out that the decision to pursue Network Rationalization does not hinge on a particular level of savings in the short term. Rather, the initiative is driven substantially by the reality that falling mail volumes have created significant excess capacity in the Postal Service's mail processing network. Network Rationalization is aimed at realigning the network with current mail volume trends. As time goes on, and mail volumes continue to decline, the cost savings will grow.
In response to mailers' concerns about potentials for loading dock shortages and longer waiting times at mail entry locations, the Postal Service will expand appointment windows at facilities and modify volume restrictions. Further, the Postal Service plans to retain all current business mail entry units (BMEUs) for the time being. Should the Postal Service decide to relocate or consolidate any BMEU operations, it will notify mailers 120 days beforehand, and it will relocate or consolidate the units to nearby locations that minimize impacts on mailers. As the Postal Service moves forward with implementation, it is committed to communicating any changes simply and clearly.
Finally, with respect to the Postal Service's decision to move forward with Network Rationalization before receiving the PRC's advisory opinion, it is notable that the Postal Service filed its advisory opinion request more than 160 days before the publication of this Notice and more than 200 days before the July 1, 2012, implementation date. The PRC's rules require that such requests be filed at least ninety days before implementation.
In addition to considering comments, the Postal Service has considered the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3691 and other applicable provisions of title 39. Section 3691(b) sets forth objectives that the Postal Service's market-dominant service standards must serve, and Section 3691(c) sets forth factors that the Postal Service must take into account when revising the service standards. The Postal Service believes that it has properly considered the subsection (c) factors, and that the revised service standards achieve the subsection (b) objectives.
Since the passage of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA), the Postal Service has been required to be largely self-supporting. The PRA established a cost-of-service system, which allowed the Postal Service to set prices at levels necessary to fully cover its costs. This system was dramatically altered in 2006 with the passage of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA). In contrast to the PRA, the PAEA established a price cap system, with strict limitations on price increases for market-dominant product classes. As the PRC has observed, a primary goal of the price cap system is “to incent the Postal Service to reduce costs and improve efficiency.”
Section 3691 is situated within this larger context of inducing efficiency gains, and the subsection (c) factors are aligned with that goal in that, taken together, they balance levels of service for customers with the Postal Service's operational and business needs. From the formal rulemaking comments that the Postal Service has received, it is clear that some customers view the current service standards as vitally important, and that some customers would experience difficulties if service standards are lengthened. On a broader level, however, it appears that the public as a whole does not view the current service standards as an essential element of the mail.
The Postal Service has conducted market research into potential consumer and business reactions to the proposed service standard changes.
In its market research, and through its ongoing dialogue with mailers, the Postal Service found that most consumers and businesses would not prefer a significant price increase in lieu of the proposed service standard changes. Thus, their views seem to align with the PAEA's overall framework of limiting price increases to induce efficiency gains. Overall, then, while the revised service standards will burden some customers, it appears that they will satisfy most customers' mailing needs and will be broadly acceptable to the mailing public.
In regard to the subsection (c) factors that relate to the Postal Service's operational and business needs, the Postal Service has already set forth, in the Proposed Rulemaking, the mail volume and financial realities that necessitate Network Rationalization. Annual First-Class Mail volume peaked in 2001 at 103.7 billion pieces, and since then it has fallen by about 30 billion pieces, or 29 percent. Because the Postal Service's mail processing network was principally designed to achieve First-Class Mail service standards, the decline in First-Class Mail volume has made it difficult for the Postal Service to consolidate the network quickly enough to align with current volumes. The Postal Service expects the declines to continue into the foreseeable future, with First-Class Mail forecast to drop from 74 billion pieces in 2011 to 39 billion pieces in 2020, a
The Postal Service believes that the revised service standards are designed to achieve the Section 3691(b) objectives. First-Class Mail and Periodicals should retain most of their value to customers, because the service standards for most such mail will increase by only one day. Further, the network consolidations made possible by the service standard changes will result in a more nimble and sustainable Postal Service. The stability of the Postal Service should, to some degree, enhance the value of First-Class Mail and Periodicals, by allowing customers to depend on the affordability of these products into the foreseeable future.
Network Rationalization will also help improve the Postal Service's performance in meeting service standards, by significantly enlarging the daily mail processing operating window. While the speed of delivery of First-Class Mail and Periodicals will diminish, somewhat reducing the value of the mail, this should be mitigated to some extent by the enhanced reliability of the service standards.
The Postal Service's market-dominant service standards are contained in 39 CFR Part 121. The new version of 39 CFR part 121 appears at the end of this Notice. The following is a summary of the revisions.
The service standards contained in 39 CFR Part 121 for each mail class can be divided into two elements: (1) A delivery day range within which all mail in a given class is expected to be delivered;
CETs are not contained in 39 CFR Part 121, because they vary based on where mail is entered, the mail's level of preparation, and other factors. The CETs at retail collection points are generally listed at those points. For example, blue collection boxes list the time of day when mail is collected from them by the Postal Service; if a blue collection box lists three pick-up times on one day, the CET for that day is the latest listed pick-up time.
The Postal Service will institute several new CETs on February 1, 2014, when the final version of the new rules begin application, as described below. Of course, the CETs could be modified again in the future, as the operating environment that the Postal Service faces evolves.
The Postal Service is not changing the general delivery day ranges for First-Class Mail. The delivery day range for First-Class Mail that originates and destinates in the contiguous forty-eight states will remain one to three days, and the delivery day range for First-Class Mail that originates or destinates in Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands will remain one to five days. The Postal Service is, however, changing the First-Class Mail business rules.
Under the current overnight business rule for First-Class Mail, the overnight service standard is applied to all intra-SCF mail, as well as to some inter-SCF mail pieces if a specified minimum level of mail volume regularly flows between the pieces' origin and destination SCFs.
Under the final version of the overnight business rule for First-Class Mail, the overnight service standard will be applied only to intra-SCF Presort mail that is entered at the actual SCF. The overnight service standard will not apply to mail that is entered anywhere other than the designated SCF, nor will it apply to mail that does not meet all of the preparation requirements for Presort mail. Pursuant to these revisions, the overnight service standard for First-Class Mail will no longer apply to mail sent by retail customers, regardless of where they enter the mail.
On February 1, 2014, when the final version of the rule takes effect, the CET at the SCF will become 8 a.m., with a 12 p.m. exception that will be available only to intra-SCF Presort First-Class Mail that is sorted and containerized to the 5-digit ZIP Code or 5-digit scheme level.
Under the current two-day business rule for First-Class Mail, a two-day service standard is applied to mail pieces for which the driving time between the applicable P&DC/F and ADC is twelve hours or less. The interim version of the two-day business rule will revise this metric to six hours. The final version will revise it to six hours between the applicable P&DC/F and SCF.
The current three-, four-, and five-day service standards for First-Class Mail will remain unchanged. All First-Class Mail that qualifies for a two-day service standard under the current two-day business rule, but does not qualify for a
The new domestic service standards for First-Class Mail International will mirror the new service standards for domestic First-Class Mail, just as the current domestic service standards for First-Class Mail International mirror the current service standards for domestic First-Class Mail.
The Postal Service is changing the delivery day range for end-to-end Periodicals mailed within the contiguous forty-eight states, from the current one to nine days, to two to nine days in the interim version of the new rules, and three to nine days in the final version. The Postal Service is also changing the delivery day range for end-to-end Periodicals that originate or destinate outside the contiguous forty-eight states, from the current one to twenty days, to two to twenty-six days in the interim version, and three to twenty-six days in the final version.
The Postal Service is changing the delivery day range for destination-entry Periodicals mailed within the contiguous forty-eight states, from the current one to two days, to one to three days in both the interim and final versions. The Postal Service is changing the delivery day range for destination-entry Periodicals that originate or destinate outside the contiguous forty-eight states, from the current one to seven days, to one to eleven days in both the interim and final versions.
The changes to the Periodicals business rules are described below. There are separate business rules for end-to-end Periodicals and destination-entry Periodicals.
Under the current overnight business rule for end-to-end Periodicals, an overnight service standard applies to intra-SCF mail for which the origin P&DC/F and SCF are located in the same building. The new rules will not apply an overnight service standard to any end-to-end Periodicals (though they will apply an overnight standard to qualifying destination-entry Periodicals, as described below).
The current two- to four-day business rule covers most end-to-end Periodicals mail pieces that are mailed within the contiguous forty-eight states and do not qualify for the overnight service standard.
The current five- to nine-day business rule covers end-to-end Periodicals mail pieces that are mailed within the contiguous forty-eight states, do not qualify for the overnight service standard, and cannot be merged with First-Class Mail. This rule will be retained.
The remaining business rules for end-to-end Periodicals cover mail pieces originating or destinating outside the contiguous forty-eight states. In the new business rules for these pieces, the current eight- to twenty-day service standard will become a twelve- to twenty-six day service standard, to more accurately reflect, and better inform customers of, the service that the Postal Service's network is presently capable of providing for mail outside the contiguous forty-eight states. The other end-to-end service standards for these pieces will not change.
The new rules make three significant changes to the service standards for destination-entry Periodicals. First, they revise the overnight service standard to exclude Periodicals entered at Network Distribution Centers (NDCs) and Auxiliary Service Facilities (ASFs). This revision is being made to reflect the capabilities of the Postal Service's transportation network.
Second, the new rules revise the seven-day service standard to an eleven-day service standard. And third, the new rules revise the five- to eight-day service standard to an eight- to eleven-day service standard. The second and third changes are being made so that the rules more accurately reflect, and better inform customers of, the service that the Postal Service's network is presently capable of providing.
On February 1, 2014, the CETs for destination-entry Periodicals at facilities that do not employ the Flats Sequencing System (FSS) will change from 4 p.m. for mailings that require a bundle sort, and 5 p.m. for mailings that do not require a bundle sort, to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., respectively. The CETs at FSS facilities will not change.
The new rules do not revise the service standards for Standard Mail and Package Services pieces mailed within the contiguous forty-eight states. They do, however, revise service standards for pieces that originate or destinate outside the contiguous forty-eight states, to more accurately reflect the service that the Postal Service's network is presently capable of providing.
Likewise, the new rules revise Package Services' maximum delivery expectation from the current twenty days to twenty-six days. Within the business rules, they revise the end-to-end seven- to twenty-day service standard to ten to twenty-six days, and the destination-entry seven- to eight-day service standard to eleven to twelve days.
Apart from the substantive changes explained above, the Postal Service has also reworded and reorganized portions of rules, particularly the First-Class Mail and Periodicals sections, in a manner that does not change the substantive effects of the rules but will, the Postal Service hopes, make the rules clearer and easier to understand.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service adopts the following revisions to 39 CFR Part 121:
39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 1001, 3691.
(a)(1) Until February 1, 2014, a 1-day (overnight) service standard is applied to intra-Sectional Center Facility (SCF) domestic First-Class Mail® pieces properly accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time (CET), except for mail between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, mail between American Samoa and Hawaii, and mail destined to the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
(2) On and after February 1, 2014, a 1-day (overnight) service standard is applied to intra-SCF domestic Presort First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted at the SCF before the day-zero CET, except for mail between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and mail destined to American Samoa and the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
(b)(1) Until February 1, 2014, a 2-day service standard is applied to inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET if the drive time between the origin Processing & Distribution Center or Facility (P&DC/F) and destination Area Distribution Center (ADC) is 6 hours or less; or if the origin and destination are separately in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; or if the origin or destination is in American Samoa or one of the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
(2) On and after February 1, 2014, a 2-day service standard is applied to inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET if the drive time between the origin P&DC/F and destination SCF is 6 hours or less; or if the origin and destination are separately in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; or if the origin or destination is in American Samoa or one of the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
(c) A 3-day service standard is applied to domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET, if the 1-day and 2-day service standards do not apply, and:
(1) Both the origin and the destination are within the contiguous 48 states;
(2) The origin is in the contiguous 48 states, and the destination is in any of the following: the city of Anchorage, Alaska (5-digit ZIP Codes 99501 through 99539); the 968 3-digit ZIP Code area in Hawaii; or the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto Rico;
(3) The origin is in the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto Rico, and the destination is in the contiguous 48 states;
(4) The origin is in Hawaii, and the destination is in Guam, or vice versa;
(5) The origin is in Hawaii, and the destination is in American Samoa, or vice versa; or
(6) Both the origin and destination are within Alaska.
(d) A 4-day service standard is applied to domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET, if the 1-day, 2-day, and 3-day service standards do not apply, and:
(1) The origin is in the contiguous 48 states and the destination is in any of the following: any portion of Alaska other than the city of Anchorage (5-digit ZIP Codes 99501 through 99539); any portion of Hawaii other than the 968 3-digit ZIP Code area; or the U.S. Virgin Islands;
(2) The destination is in the contiguous 48 states and the origin is in Alaska, Hawaii, or the U.S. Virgin Islands; or
(3) The origin and destination are in different non-contiguous states or territories, excluding mail to and from Guam and mail between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(e) A 5-day service standard is applied to all remaining domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET.
(f) The service standard for Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
(g) The service standard for Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET is equivalent to the service standard for domestic First-Class Mail pieces destined to the same 3-digit ZIP Code area and originating from the 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the designated International Service Center is located.
(a)
(1)(i) Until February 1, 2014, a 2- to 4-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time (CET) and merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface transportation (as per the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)), with the standard specifically equaling the sum of 1 day plus the applicable First-Class Mail service standard;
(ii) On and after February 1, 2014, a 3- to 4-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET and merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface transportation (as per the DMM), with the standard specifically equaling the sum of 1 day plus the applicable First-Class Mail service standard.
(2) A 3-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET if: the origin and destination are separately in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; or if the origin is in Alaska, the service standards set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) do not apply, and the destination is in the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
(3) A 4-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET if: the origin and destination are separately in Hawaii and Guam; or the origin and destination are separately in Hawaii and American Samoa.
(4)(i) A 5- to 8-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET if they originate and destinate within the contiguous 48 states, they are not merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface transportation (as per the DMM), and the Area Distribution Center (ADC) and Sectional Center Facility (SCF) are co-located, with the standard specifically equaling the sum of 4 days plus the number of additional days (from 1 to 4) required for surface transportation between the applicable 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pairs;
(ii) A 6- to 9-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET if they originate and destinate within the contiguous 48 states, they are not merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface transportation (as per the DMM),
(5) A 12- to 26-day service standard is applied to all remaining Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET, with the standard specifically equaling the sum of 5 days plus the number of additional days (from 7 to 21) required for intermodal (highway, boat, air-taxi) transportation outside the contiguous 48 states for the applicable 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pairs.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) A 1-day (overnight) service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DSCF rate and are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DSCF, except for mail entered at the SCF in Puerto Rico and destined to the U.S. Virgin Islands, mail entered at the SCF in Hawaii and destined to American Samoa, and mail destined to the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999;
(ii) A 3-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DSCF rate and are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DSCF, if the they are entered at the DSCF in Puerto Rico and destined to the U.S. Virgin Islands, entered at the DSCF in Hawaii and destined to American Samoa, or destined to the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
(3)
(i) A 1-day (overnight) service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC rate and are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DADC, if the DADC and DSCF are co-located;
(ii) A 2-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC rate and are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DADC, if the DADC and DSCF are not co-located, unless the mail is entered at a DADC within the contiguous 48 states and destined outside the contiguous 48 states, or entered at the DADC in Puerto Rico and destined to the U.S. Virgin Islands, or destined to either American Samoa or the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999;
(iii) A 4-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC rate and are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DADC, if they are entered at the DADC in Puerto Rico and destined to the U.S. Virgin Islands, or if they are destined to American Samoa or the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999;
(iv) An 11-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC rate, are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DADC in the contiguous 48 states, and are destined to the 998 or 999 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska.
(4)
(i) A 2-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC containerized rate, are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DNDC or ASF in the contiguous 48 states, and are destined within the contiguous 48 states, if the DADC and DSCF are co-located;
(ii) A 3-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC containerized rate, are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DNDC or ASF in the contiguous 48 states, and are destined within the contiguous 48 states, if the DADC and DSCF are not co-located;
(iii) An 8- to 10-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC containerized rate, are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DNDC or ASF in the contiguous 48 states, and are destined outside the contiguous 48 states, if the DADC and DSCF are co-located, with the specific standard being based on the number of days required for transportation outside the contiguous 48 states;
(iv) A 9- to 11-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that qualify for a DADC containerized rate, are properly accepted before the day-zero CET at the designated DNDC or ASF in the contiguous 48 states, and are destined outside the contiguous 48 states, if the DADC and DSCF are not co-located, with the specific standard being based on the number of days required for transportation outside the contiguous 48 states.
(a)
(2) The service standard for Area Distribution Center (ADC) turnaround Standard Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is 4 days when the OPD&C/F and the ADC are the same building, unless the ADC is in the contiguous 48 states and the delivery address is not, or the mail is between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the mail is between Hawaii and American Samoa.
(3) The service standard for intra-Network Distribution Center (NDC) Standard Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is 5 days for each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair within the same Network Distribution Center service area if the origin and destination are within the contiguous 48 states; the same standard applies to mail that is intra-Alaska or between the state of Hawaii and the territory of Guam or American Samoa.
(4) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair within the contiguous 48 states, the service standard for Standard Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is the sum of 5 or 6 days plus the number of additional days (from 1 to 4) required for surface transportation between each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair.
(5) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair, the service standard for Standard Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is the sum of 5 or 6 days plus the number of additional days (from 7 to 21) required for intermodal (highway, boat, air-taxi) transportation outside the contiguous 48 states for each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair.
(b)
(2) Standard Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination Sectional Center Facility (DSCF) rate and that are accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DSCF have a 3-day service standard, except for mail dropped at the SCF in the territory of Puerto Rico and destined to the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands, or mail destined to American Samoa.
(3) Standard Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination Sectional Center Facility (DSCF) rate, are accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the SCF, and are either entered in Puerto Rico and destined to the U.S. Virgin Islands, or are destined to American Samoa, have a 4-day service standard.
(4) Standard Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination Network Distribution Center (DNDC) rate, and that are accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DNDC have a 5-day service standard, if both the origin and the destination are in the contiguous 48 states.
(5) Standard Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination Network Distribution Center (DNDC) rate, and that are accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DNDC in the contiguous 48 states for delivery to addresses in the states of Alaska or Hawaii or the territories of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, have a service standard of 12–14 days, depending on the 3-digit origin-destination ZIP Code pair. For each such pair, the applicable day within the range is based on the number of days required for transportation outside the contiguous 48 states.
(a)
(2) The service standard for intra-Network Distribution Center (NDC) Package Services mail accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is 3 days, for each remaining (non-intra-SCF) 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair within a Network Distribution Center service area, where the origin and destination is within the contiguous 48 states and is not served by an Auxiliary Service Facility; and for mail between the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and for mail destined to American Samoa.
(3) The service standard for intra-Network Distribution Center (NDC) Package Services mail accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is 4 days for each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair within a Network Distribution Center service area, where the destination delivery address is served by an Auxiliary Service Facility; the same standard applies to all remaining intra-Alaska mail and mail between the state of Hawaii and the territory of Guam, and mail destined to American Samoa.
(4) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair within the contiguous 48 states, the service standard for Package Services mail accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is between 5 and 8 days. For each such 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair, this is the sum of 4 days, plus the number of additional days (from 1 to 4) required for surface transportation between each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair, plus an additional day if the destination delivery address is served by an Auxiliary Service Facility.
(5) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair for which either the origin or the destination is outside the contiguous 48 states, the service standard for Package Services mail accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is between 10 and 26 days. For each such 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair, this represents the sum of 3 to 4 days, plus the number of days (ranging from 7 to 22) required for intermodal (highway, boat, air-taxi) transportation between each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair.
(6) The service standard for Inbound Surface Parcel Post® pieces (subject to Universal Postal Union rates) is the same as the service standard for domestic Package Services mail from the 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the International Network Distribution Center is located in the 3-digit ZIP Code in which the delivery address is located.
(b)
(2) Package Services mail that qualifies for a Destination Sectional Center Facility (DSCF) rate, and that is accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DSCF, has a 2-day service standard, except for mail dropped at the SCF in the territory of Puerto Rico and destined to the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and mail destined to American Samoa.
(3) Package Services mail that qualifies for a Destination Sectional Center Facility (DSCF) discount, is accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the SCF, and is destined to either American Samoa or the U.S. Virgin Islands, has a 3-day service standard.
(4) Package Services mail that qualifies for a Destination Network Distribution Center (DNDC) rate, and is accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DNDC or Destination Auxiliary Service Facility, and originates and destinates in the contiguous 48 states, has a 3-day service standard.
(5) Package Services mail that qualifies for a Destination Network Distribution Center (DNDC) rate, and that is accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DNDC in the contiguous 48 states for delivery to addresses in the states of Alaska or Hawaii, or the territories of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands has a service standard of either 11 or 12 days, depending on the 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair. For each such pair, the applicable day within the range is based on the number of days required for transportation outside the contiguous 48 states.
The following tables reflect the service standard day ranges resulting from the application of the business rules applicable to the market-dominant mail products referenced in §§ 121.1 through 121.4:
Table 1. Prior to February 1, 2014, end-to-end service standard day ranges for mail originating and destinating within the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia.
Table 2. On and after February 1, 2014, end-to-end service standard day ranges for mail originating and destinating within the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia.
Table 3. Prior to February 1, 2014, end-to-end service standard day ranges for mail originating and/or destinating in non-contiguous states and territories.
Table 4. On and after February 1, 2014, end-to-end service standard day ranges for mail originating and/or destinating in non-contiguous states and territories.
Table 5. Destination-entry service standard day ranges for mail to the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia.
Table 6. Destination entry service standard day ranges for mail to non-contiguous states and territories.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) portion of the California SIP. This SIP revision incorporates Rule 1315—Federal New Source Review Tracking System—into the District's SIP approved New Source Review (NSR) program to establish the procedures for demonstrating equivalency with federal offset requirements by specifying how the District will track debits and credits in its Offset Accounts for Federal NSR Equivalency for specific federal nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. EPA is approving this SIP revision because Rule 1315 provides an adequate system to demonstrate on an on-going basis that the rule requires offsets in amounts equivalent to those otherwise required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and that the emission reductions the District is crediting and debiting in its Offset Accounts meet the CAA's NSR offset requirements for federal major sources and modifications.
EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0140 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3534,
Throughout this document, “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to EPA.
EPA allows and encourages local authorities to tailor SIP programs, including new source review permitting programs, to account for that community's particular needs provided that the SIP is not less stringent than the Act's requirements. See generally CAA Section 116, 42 U.S.C. 7416;
When EPA approved Regulation XIII in 1996, we noted that Rule 1304 exempted certain major sources from
EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the South Coast portion of the California SIP. The SIP revision will be codified in 40 CFR 52.220 by incorporating by reference South Coast Rule 1315, as adopted February 4, 2011 and submitted on March 2, 2011.
The SIP revision provides a federally approved and enforceable mechanism for the District to transfer offsetting emissions reductions from the District's Offset Accounts to projects that qualify under District Rules 1304 and 1309.1.
In response to our February 22, 2012 proposed rule, we received six comments, one from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District), one from a consortium of environmental groups (Coalition for a Safe Environment, Communities for a Better Environment, Desert Citizens Against Pollution and the Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively referred to herein as “CSE”)), and one each from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, California Small Business Alliance, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, and the Southern California Gas Company. Copies of each comment letter have been added to the docket and are accessible at
EPA responded to these comments by revising the restriction on using emissions credits from shutdown sources, stating: “The essence of the Act's offset provision is that a new source may be allowed in a nonattainment area only where its presence would be consistent with RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS.” Id. at 27292. EPA explained in the preamble to the 1989 final rule: “Thus, where a
EPA cited several planning scenarios “in which EPA considers the SIP to be inadequate and will continue to restrict offset credits for prior shutdowns.” Id. at 27294. These scenarios included (1) “nonattainment areas that have received a final notice of disapproval of their current SIP,” (2) “nonattainment areas that have received either a section 110(a)(2)(H) notice of deficiency based on failure to attain or maintain the primary NAAQS, or a notice of failure to implement an approved SIP,” and (3) “nonattainment areas that received notice from EPA that they have failed to meet conditions in their EPA-approved SIPs, including commitments to adopt particular regulations by a certain date.” Id. at 27294–95. These are the relevant limited situations in which a
CSE provides no support for its conclusory position that an approved attainment plan is only “valid” if EPA has redesignated the area to attainment for the pollutant at issue prior to or upon the attainment date. EPA fully approved the plan submitted by California to provide for attainment of the particulate matter (PM
Accordingly, the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(
CSE's comment uses the phrase “expected growth,” which is not a term used in the 2003 AQMP, and then refers only to portions of the AQMP pertaining to expected
The District includes pre-base year emissions in the
The District's
However, not
In our proposed rule, after describing the 2007 AQMP's treatment of VOC and NO
Our TSD provides a detailed discussion of these data as it relates to the 2003 AQMP. We state: “For PM
In summary, CSE confuses
CSE is incorrect. This portion of the 2003 AQMP is evaluating historic PM
EPA's proposal and TSD stated: “For PM
EPA requested the District to extract those point and area sources subject to
CSE's same comment contends that the District's Table 2–8 does not separate emissions into pre- and post-base year emissions. The spreadsheets the District provided and EPA attached to its TSD show the actual 1997 emission inventory for point and area sources subject to NSR—assuming no growth (Docket Item III–AA), the 2010 projected emission inventory (added to the docket as Docket Item III–BB), and the 2020 projected inventory that was attached to the TSD (Docket Item III–Z). Each of the future year NSR inventories (2010 and 2020) are based on emissions growth expected from the 1997 baseline. This means that the inventory for “no growth” is the inventory NSR subject point and area sources of 1997 emissions. Docket Item III–AA. The inventory “with growth” is the amount of emissions added into the 1997 inventory for purposes of showing attainment in 2010 and projecting out to 2020. Docket Items III–Z and III–AA. The distinctions between the inventories for the base year and after the base year, therefore, are inherent in the data itself and are summarized for NSR sources in the Docket Items III–Z, III–AA and III–BB. Based on the District's projected demand, 3.1 tpd of PM
CSE is correct that the 2003 AQMP inventories with no growth and with growth do not distinguish between the open market and the NSR Account transactions. Comment Letter at 7. However, there is no need for such a distinction and CSE has not provided any reason that such a distinction is needed. The only issue is whether the District has added sufficient pre-base year emissions from shutdown sources to allow for expected use of those emissions after the base year. As discussed above, the District has adequately accounted for these pre-base year PM
CSE's comment concludes: “This leads EPA to conclude that the District added 3.1 tpd of PM
As we explained in the TSD, the District's adjustment to the future year PM
CSE's argument on this point appears to be that EPA's regulations require the District to include in its future year inventories all of the emissions offsets that could ever be available for use in the Air Basin (i.e. 3.94 tpd of PM
EPA proposed to approve Rule 1315 upon finding that the District included in its 2003 AQMP 3.1 tpd of PM
As EPA noted in Response 1 above, in 1989, EPA significantly revised its previous restrictions on use of offset credit for source shutdowns and curtailments (formerly 40 CFR 51.18(j)) to allow the planning agency to have more control over emissions growth in the area and to allow sources to shutdown without forfeiting emissions credit if it could not be used immediately to replace productive capacity. See 54 FR at 27295–95. Congress substantially amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, including the attainment planning process in Part D of Title I of the Act. In 1992, EPA issued guidance entitled “State Implementation Plans: The General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). In that document, EPA stated: “For purposes of equity, EPA encourages States to allow sources to use pre-enactment banked emissions reductions credits for offsetting purposes. States may do so as long as the restored credits meet all other offset creditability criteria and such credits are considered by States as part of the attainment emissions inventory when developing their post-enactment attainment demonstration * * *. Existing EPA regulations [40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)] prohibits certain pre-enactment banked emissions reduction credits, i.e., reductions achieved by shutting down existing sources or curtailing production or operating hours, from being used in the absence of an EPA-approved attainment plan.” 57 FR 13498 at 13508. Nothing in these discussions suggests that the entire amount, or balance, of pre-base year banked credits must be included in the future year inventory of the approved attainment demonstration.
In 1996, EPA further considered this issue as part of our proposed rule to revise the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and NSR regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I (61 FR 38250, July 23, 1996). In that proposed rule, EPA stated: “Passage of the 1990 Amendments has significantly altered the landscape that confronted EPA at the time of the 1989 rulemaking. Congress significantly reworked the attainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the Act such that EPA now believes it is appropriate to delete the restrictions on crediting of emissions reductions from source shutdowns and curtailments that occurred after 1990. In particular, Congress enhanced the importance of the requirement in section 172(c)(3) that States prepare a `comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources' in a nonattainment area as the fundamental tool for air quality planning.” 61 FR 38250, 38311.
The proposed rule in 1996 notes that the 1990 Amendments added specific milestones towards achieving attainment and also mandated sanctions that would apply to States that fail to submit an attainment demonstration. 61 FR at 38311–12. EPA proposed two alternatives to allow increased use of shutdown credits. Id. In 2005, EPA's Phase 2 8-hour ozone implementation rule finalized the 1996 proposed alternative that did not require a State to have an approved attainment plan to use prior shutdown credits. 70 FR 71612, 71676 (November 29, 2005). On reconsideration of this rule in 2007, EPA disagreed with a comment that suggested retiring a certain quantity of pre-base year emissions each year, stating: “The requirements of the NSR program provide growth management tools and are an integral part of the overall air quality attainment program.”
NRDC challenged this portion (among others) of EPA's 2005 final rulemaking, arguing in part that EPA's allowance of pre-base year shutdown credits and elimination of the requirement for an approved attainment demonstration were arbitrary and capricious. In 2009, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected NRDC's challenge to EPA's longstanding policy allowing “pre-application reductions” as NSR offsets, as codified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(
Thus, we agree with CSE's general point that approval of an attainment demonstration for the relevant NAAQS is a prerequisite to the use of prior shutdown credits in accordance with 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(
CSE is continuing to confuse
Table 2–8 in the 2007 AQMP Appendix III shows the VOC and NO
EPA requested the District to provide data on the amount of growth that was included for point and area sources subject to NSR. EPA provided that information in Docket Items III–P (showing point and area NSR subject sources with growth) and III–Q (showing point and area NSR subject sources for no growth). These tables show that for NSR subject sources the District added 12 tpd for VOC (35 tpd to 47 tpd) and 2 tpd for NO
CSE's comment that EPA “conflates total growth from all point sources in Table 2–8 * * * for growth based on pre-base-year credits from the NSR Account” is not clear. CSE appears to consider only point sources as being subject to NSR. However, the District includes both point and area sources in its NSR program. Therefore, the District put together data on the point and area sources that are subject to NSR and prepared the tables in Docket Item III–P and III–Q. CSE apparently did not understand this information because it says that “it is identical information already attached to Appendix III of the 2007 AQMP—simply repackaged into a single table.” Comment Letter at 13. This is incorrect. EPA stated in its TSD: “For Table 2.8 [sic], the District provided EPA with point and area source data used to generate the summary data. EPA used this data to determine the amount of emission due to growth at facilities subject to NSR requirements.” TSD at 12, n 6. Therefore, EPA correctly determined that the District added sufficient pre-base year credits for point and area sources subject to NSR. The amount added as growth far exceeded the historic demand that the District used as a check.
For the two next points in CSE's comment on the 2007 AQMP, EPA incorporates its response from Responses 6 and 7, as applicable to the 2007 AQMP for VOC and NO
As discussed both in the District's Staff Report and EPA's TSD, EPA raised the issue of availability of sufficient records for the pre-1990 credits in the District's Offset Accounts in 2002, in light of the District's adoption of Rule 1309.2—Offset Budget, which would allow more sources access to the Offset Accounts. TSD at 4. EPA pointed to a 1994 EPA memo regarding the use of pre-1990 offsets as guidance. See Memorandum dated August 26, 1994 from John S. Seitz, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to David Howekamp, Director, EPA Region IX Air and Toxics Division, “Response to Request for Guidance on Use of Pre-1990 ERC's and Adjusting for RACT at Time of Use” (1994 Seitz Memo). The 1994 Seitz Memo states that pre-1990 credits may be utilized, provided the State “collect[s] and maintain[s] information on these ERC's, including, at a minimum, the name of the source that generated the ERC's, the source category that applies to this source, the quantity of ERC's generated by this source, the specific action that created the ERC's (e.g., a shutdown of a unit, process change, add-on control), the date that the ERC's were generated and enough other information to determine the creditability of all ERC's.” 1994 Seitz Memo at 2. At EPA's request, the District reviewed all available records and determined that sufficient records were no longer available for some of pre-1990 credits, or that the effort to provide those records was too burdensome. See Proposed SCAQMD NSR Offset Tracking System, Background, February 23, 2006. Nevertheless, the District undertook a complete and thorough review of its offset records. Id. at 2. The result was the District's elimination of pre-1990 credits for which it did not have adequate documentation. Id. (stating: “In order to resolve EPA's comments, SCAQMD staff is proposing several modifications to the procedures used in the tracking system. In the revised procedures SCAQMD has proposed elimination of all credits for which SCAQMD no longer retains documentation.”)
From this review, the District calculated new beginning balances for each of the pollutants. The District removed pre-1990 credits with inadequate records from the 1990 starting balance, leading to much lower balances for all pollutants except NO
CSE claims that since “EPA failed to review the documentation that the SCAQMD relied upon to establish its Offset Account balance, then EPA[ ] is in no position to find * * *” that the credits in the Offset Accounts meet the requirements of the CAA. As discussed on page 10 of the TSD, EPA made a determination as to the whether the credits contained in the District's Offset Accounts meet the federal integrity criteria of being permanent, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable and therefore meet the requirements of the CAA. It is not necessary for EPA to review documentation for every single credit and debit in the District's Offset Account to make this determination. Instead EPA has reviewed and evaluated the mechanisms contained within Rule 1315 to ensure that at the time of use, all credits used to offset new emission increases meet the federal integrity criteria. Further discussion of how EPA evaluated the rule is provided below in response to specific comments made by CSE.
The first problem identified by CSE is that “the CAA's plain language requires `actual' emissions be used to meet its offsetting requirement * * *” They then cite 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) which reads “All such plans shall use the specific definitions. Deviations from the following wording will be approved only if the State specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all respects as the corresponding definition below.” While not stated explicitly, it appears that CSE's intended comment is that the rule must use the term and meaning of “actual” as defined in 51.165 and not an alternative determination of “actual” emissions.
The only remaining question is whether the District's use of 80% of permitted emission limits for orphan shutdowns provides a result that is “at least as stringent as” the result of using the 40 CFR 51.165 definition of the term
As stated in the District's Staff Report, the District has implemented an NSR tracking system to demonstrate programmatic equivalence between its NSR program and the offset requirements of the Federal program since EPA's 1996 approval of the Districts NSR program. District staff have prepared and presented to the AQMD Governing Board at public meetings a series of reports that track credits and debits from August 1990 through July 2002. While the rulemaking process for Rule 1315 was in flux (adopted, challenged in court, repealed, re-adopted * * *) the District submitted additional reports in 2007 that also tracked the credits and debits from the District's Offset Accounts. Each of these reports demonstrated that in the aggregate, the District provided an equivalent number of offsets as would have otherwise been required by the federal CAA. Each of these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
Typically credits are adjusted at the time of use by reviewing the source category and type of reduction that created the emission reduction and determining if any new requirements requiring additional reductions have become applicable. This method would be extremely difficult and administratively burdensome if applied to the District's tracking system. Therefore the District proposed an alternative which we believe is equivalent to the case by case application of surplus adjustment at the time of use. Rule 1315 paragraph (c)(4) requires the District to determine the quantity of emission reductions expected from the adoption of new regulations for each non-attainment pollutant. The District then determines what percentage of permitted emissions these reductions represent. The same percentage of emission reductions is then applied to the Offset Account balance for that pollutant. For example, if the District adopts two rules that will achieve 200 tpy of PM
As the Rule is currently proposed, a manufacturing facility operating now could have received a Community Bank or Priority Reserve allocation for emissions in 1994 [check], based upon the shutdown of a boiler that operated between 1987 and 1993. Then, the manufacturing facility shuts down in 2010 and submits a 1306 banking application. This proposed rule would allow the SCAQMD to bank the entire Community Bank or Priority Reserve allocation even though the intervening facility has already used that allocation to meet its 1303 obligation and there have been rules adopted between 1987 and 2010 that would have required emission reductions for boilers.
As CSE notes, Section 182(e)(1) of the CAA provides an exception to the requirement of a 1.5:1 offset ratio for ozone precursors in extreme non-attainment areas. This Section reads as follows:
We note that California state law requires all nonattainment areas to implement Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT).
The definition of BACT referenced in Section 182(e)(1) is from the new source review regulations, which only apply when a facility is new or makes a modification that increases emissions. The language in Section 182(e)(1) therefore specifically states that the requirement—to apply the Best Available Control Technology—also applies to existing major sources. This inherently means that any additional control must be applied on a retrofit basis, which is exactly what the California requirement to apply Best Available
The South Coast Air Basin has a 1-hour ozone attainment plan (referred to as the “1997/1999 South Coast Ozone SIP”) that EPA approved in 2000 (65 FR 18903, April 10, 2000) and this SIP revision would not interfere with that plan. However, the commenter is correct that a recent Ninth Circuit decision raises the possibility that, in light of deficiencies in the 1997/1999 South Coast Ozone SIP brought to EPA's attention in 2003 (i.e., prior to revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard) and having nothing to do with NSR, EPA may find it necessary to develop and adopt a new 1-hour ozone attainment plan or require the State of California to do so, in response to the remand of that case. See, generally,
Second, we disagree with the commenter's suggestion that the South Coast's inclusion of a long-term strategy in the 2007 AQMP precludes our approval of Rule 1315 into the SIP or somehow renders our approval arbitrary and capricious. CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to “approve provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme Area which anticipate development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies * * *” provided certain conditions have been met. 42 U.S.C. 7511a(e)(5). EPA fully approved the 2007 AQMP based, in part, on our conclusion that California had met the criteria for approval of a long-term strategy under CAA section 182(e)(5) for purposes of attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (77 FR 12674 at 12686–12689) and our conclusion that the SCAQMD had accounted for existing pre-base year ERCs in the reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment year inventories in the plan, consistent with the applicable requirements of part D, title I of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (77 FR 12674 at 12682). CSE provides no support for its contention that these elements of the 2007 AQMP preclude or undermine our approval of Rule 1315 into the SIP, nor any information indicating that approval of Rule 1315 would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any other applicable requirement of the Act (see CAA 110(l)).
Finally, to the extent the commenter intended to argue that the South Coast area's failure to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date precludes our approval of Rule 1315 or somehow renders our approval arbitrary and capricious, we disagree. EPA's recent determination that the South Coast area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standards by its applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010 (76 FR 82133, December 30, 2011) has no bearing on our action on Rule 1315, and the commenter provides no support for any argument otherwise.
The District requested EPA to include in its final approval the following clarification: “The AQMP growth projections do not distinguish between new or modified sources and increased operations at existing sources. Therefore, the growth projections represent a maximum projected amount of demand for pre-base-year offsets. All growth from new and modified sources must necessarily be offset by pre-base-year emission reductions. This is because post-base-year reductions could at most be used to replace themselves, and would not be available to support growth. Therefore, the AQMP growth projections represent maximum projected use of pre-base-year offsets.” Comment Letter at 5. The District's comment also attached copies of hundreds of letters from local municipalities, organizations and businesses that supported State legislation that would allow the District to continue to issue credits from its Offset Accounts during preparation of CEQA documents.
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving Rule 1315, as adopted February 4, 2011 and submitted on March 2, 2011, into the South Coast portion of the California SIP based on our conclusion that this SIP revision satisfies all applicable CAA requirements.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 24, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(403) A new rule for the following APCD was submitted on March 2, 2011, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces the deletion of Operable Unit (OU) 1—the former Fire Protection Training Area (FPTA), along with two other Areas of Concern (AOC): the Gateway Lake Ash Study Area and the Pride Hangar Study Area of the Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB) from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial deletion pertains to the surface soil, unsaturated subsurface soil, surface water and sediments of Operable Unit (OU) 1, the Gateway Lake Ash Study Area, and the Pride Hangar Study Area. The groundwater medium associated with OU–11, Basewide Groundwater will remain on the NPL. The EPA and the State of South Dakota, through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than five-year reviews have been completed. However, the deletion of these parcels does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
Mr. John Dalton, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202; telephone number 303–312–6601; fax number 303–312–6961; email address:
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1990–0011. All documents in the docket are listed on the
U.S. EPA, Region 8 Library, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202, Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
South Dakota Air & Space Museum, 2890 Davis, Bldg 5208, Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706 Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
C. Mark Aguilar, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 8EPR–F 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312–6251, email:
The portion of the site to be deleted from the NPL is: Operable Unit (OU) 1—the former Fire Protection Training Area (FPTA), along with two other Areas of Concern (AOC): the Gateway Lake Ash Study Area and the Pride Hangar Study Area of the Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota. A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for this Site was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion was April 12, 2012. No public comments were received and EPA still believes the partial deletion action is appropriate.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection.
The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) proposes to modify Operating Loan (OL) application, eligibility, and security requirements for microloans (ML) that would serve the unique operating needs of very small family farm operations. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to make the OL Program more widely available and attractive to smaller operators through reduced application requirements, more timely application processing, and added flexibility in meeting the managerial ability eligibility requirement. This proposed rule also would remove provisions for the low documentation (Lo-Doc) application process for OLs from the existing direct loan regulations.
We will consider comments that we receive by July 24, 2012.
We invite you to submit comments on this rule and the new information collection request. In your comments, include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), and volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
Comments will be available for inspection online at
Connie Holman; telephone: (202) 690–0756. Persons with disabilities or who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
FSA has a long history of providing agricultural credit to the Nation's farmers and ranchers through its OL Program. Throughout this rule, any reference to “farm” or “farmer” also includes “ranch” or “rancher,” respectively; in this document, the word “operator” refers to farmers who operate a farm. FSA's OL Program is designed to finance the farm operating needs of family farms for operators who meet the program eligibility requirements. Among other things, eligible applicants must be unable to obtain sufficient credit from other sources; have sufficient applicable education, on-the-job training, or farming experience; have an acceptable credit history; and have adequate collateral for the proposed loan. (See 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.252 for a full explanation of OL eligibility requirements.) OL funds may be used for such things as annual or term operating purposes to refinance certain debts; pay normal farm operating and family living expenses; purchase livestock, equipment, and other materials essential to a farm operation, and may also be used for some minor improvements to farm real estate, such as wells and essential repairs to buildings. (See 7 CFR 764.251 for a complete list of OL funds uses.) OL funds cannot be used to finance the purchase of real estate. The maximum loan amount for OLs is $300,000, and repayment can be amortized up to 7 years depending on the specific loan purpose and expected useful life of the collateral. (See 7 CFR 761.8(a)(2) and 764.254(b)(1)(ii).) For example, an annual OL used to finance crop input costs such as seed, fertilizer, and chemicals, will generally be due in 1 year, while a term OL to finance equipment, livestock, or grape vines may be extended up to 7 years. As specified in 7 CFR 764.254(a)(3), the interest rate charged is the OL rate in effect at the time of loan approval or at the time of loan closing, whichever is lower. FSA's direct loan interest rates are adjusted as often as monthly and are available on the FSA Web site at:
In on-going efforts to improve the OL Program, FSA evaluated the unique needs of small farm operations and identified unintended barriers to their applying for OLs, and is proposing to simplify the application process and add flexibility for meeting loan eligibility and security requirements to encourage their participation. FSA is proposing an ML process within the existing OL Program and using existing OL appropriations that would focus on the financing needs of small farm operations. These small farms, including non-traditional farm operations, currently have limited financing options, as explained below.
With increased awareness among consumers regarding the sources, affordability, and quality of their food, and the wider occurrence of community supported agriculture (CSA) the small specialty producer has increasing opportunities to raise and sell locally. Additionally, low-income neighborhoods with high concentrations of people who are far from a grocery store and have limited access to healthy food choices. These areas (sometimes called “food deserts”) have gained attention and support from the USDA, the United States Department of the Treasury, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Obama Administration's
Operators of these types of small farms are not typically served by agricultural lenders, and may have difficulty obtaining financing from conventional commercial lenders. Consequently, these farmers often rely on credit cards or personal loans, which carry high interest rates and less flexible payment schedules, to finance their operations. Though their specialty produce may not be well known to ag-lending community at-large, there can be a viable market within cultural or ethnic communities.
The 2007 Census of Agriculture shows that 71 percent of all farm
An ML is a type of OL with abbreviated streamlined application process and modified security and eligibility requirements. The major components of the proposed ML process are the application process and flexibility in meeting some of the eligibility and security requirements. These components have been specially designed to make the ML process appeal to small farm operations. The proposed ML application process simplifies the information required to apply by reducing the level of documentation required to more appropriately align with the less complex structure and needs of smaller operations. Additionally, the eligibility requirement for managerial ability, and the loan security requirements for an ML have been modified to be more appropriate for smaller family farms.
With the proposed ML application process, FSA can provide credit to these farmers with reasonable rates and terms. Applicants that otherwise may have chosen credit card financing in lieu of an FSA OL due to the application process or certain eligibility requirements may choose to seek assistance from FSA to start and continue their operations as a result of the simplified application process and eligibility and security requirements. Additionally, the flexibility FSA gives farmers to make loan payments when they sell their products allows them to more efficiently manage their income and resources. Participation in FSA's loan programs provides eligible farms advantages over credit card financing and this is significant because financing costs have a greater impact on smaller start-up operations, which typically have tighter cashflows. These benefits will help small operations progress through the start-up years, build capacity, increase equity, expand their use of FSA's loan programs, and eventually graduate to commercial credit.
The ML application process would significantly streamline requirements compared to FSA's existing OL process. As a result, it would provide an option for farmers who may be intimidated by the documentation requirements that are often perceived as a deterrent to participation in FSA's loan programs. Additionally, FSA believes that the proposed ML application process would provide a financial bridge for many of its successful Youth Loan Program borrowers as they move toward more complex operations. Youth Loans are made to borrowers between the ages of 10 to 20 to finance income producing agriculture-related projects. The maximum amount of a youth loan is $5,000. (See 7 CFR part 764, subpart H for a further description and explanation of the requirements for youth loans.) FSA also views the ML application process as a catalyst for other small farmers to move forward in their farming ventures.
FSA has the responsibility of providing credit counseling and supervision to its direct loan borrowers. While the ML requirements will reduce the burden on loan applicants, it will not reduce the level of counseling and supervision provided by FSA. In fact, the reduced documentation will allow FSA personnel to devote more time to loan analysis and to provide technical assistance to borrowers.
Though MLs are not limited to beginning farmers, they will benefit from the modified alternatives for meeting the managerial experience eligibility requirement by allowing applicants to gain experience while managing their own farm or through a past association with an agricultural-related organization. In the application, the applicant will provide a written description of their apprenticeship relationship (planned or current), or will provide a written description of their past affiliations with an agriculture-related organization explaining how the experience will contribute to the success of managing their own farm operation.
Since the majority of small farms gross $25,000 or less in farm sales, as discussed below, a maximum of $35,000 for an ML should be ample for many beginning farmers starting out. As their financing needs expand, applicants can apply for an OL up to direct maximum loan amount of $300,000 or obtain financing from a commercial lender under the Guaranteed Loan Program.
FSA performed a preliminary analysis of the proposed ML process and evaluated its potential to impact loan losses and program costs. Actual losses will ultimately depend on the demand by, and the risk profile of, the ML borrowers. These variables are currently unknown; however, historical borrower data on OL originations was used to approximate participation. Past demand for smaller OLs provides a baseline indication of potential ML demand. ML baseline demand and associated costs were forecast by varying the maximum ML amount from $15,000 to $35,000 and applying these criteria to historical OL data. In fiscal year 2011, FSA made 14,628 direct operating loans to 10,927 applicants. Slightly less than 31 percent of all these applicants received loans totaling less than $35,000. This indicates the number of MLs made might be quite high, although the potential for increased losses could be minimized as these same applicants received just under 10 percent of the total dollar amount loaned under the direct OL Program, or $103 million out of the $1.037 billion loan portfolio. Because of expected similarities between the operations managed by ML applicants and Youth Loan applicants, such as new operations and operators, loan rates, small amounts of operating expenses, and small loan volume compared to the regular OL Program, an assumption was made that ML borrowers will have the same risk profile as Youth Loan Program participants. Furthermore, exposure to losses would also be partially offset by administrative savings achieved as a result of reductions in workload during the application process.
To implement ML, FSA is proposing changes to the regulations and to the information collection requirements as discussed below. The changes to the regulations are discussed in the same order in which the regulations appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Abbreviations and definitions used throughout FSA Farm Loan Programs (FLP) are in 7 CFR 761.2. This rule proposes to add abbreviations and definitions to that section that will be used for loans made through the ML application process. FSA is proposing to add an abbreviation for “microloan” and definitions for “microloan” and “apprentice.”
Proposed farm assessment requirements for ML applicants will be significantly reduced. A farm assessment for FSA's direct loan programs is a collaborative effort between FSA and the applicant and currently, it addresses the farm organization and key personnel qualifications, type of farming operation, goals for the operation, adequacy of real estate and chattel
A complete ML application would consist of the following:
• An application form;
• A description of the applicant's farm training and experience;
• A balance sheet;
• An annual cash flow budget;
• Applicable environmental information;
• Verification of non-farm income relied upon for loan repayment;
• Past income, expenses, and yields for the most recent production cycle, to the extent practicable; and
• Credit report fee.
A new application form will be available for ML applicants. This form is intended to capture most of the information needed to process an ML, including sections for the applicant to describe their farm training and experience. It will also reduce and simplify the financial statement. For example, no itemization will be required for the ML cash flow budget, which differs from the more detailed farm operating plan and similar income and expense projections as required by the existing OL programs.
Environmental information will still be handled through the county office process, involving FSA staff and NRCS staff as applicable. This will not change from the current process followed for regular OLs.
Verification of non-farm income will only be required if that income is necessary for a feasible plan and sufficient cash flow for debt repayment. This is a change over the existing OL application process, as income is always verified as specified in 7 CFR 764.51(b)(8). If it is necessary to verify debt, debts will be verified through the credit bureau reporting system.
There also are proposed changes to the requirement for reporting of past yields as currently specified in 7 CFR 761.104. Applicants can provide other forms of documentation such as operator's sales receipts, financial statements, contracts, and tax returns. This change will be helpful for operations where past yields have little bearing on the projected plan, such as vegetable operators who plan short term and grow different crops to meet current demand, operators who produce crops using measures such as rows or partial rows versus acres, or operators who grow crops that sell in volumes such as bunches. In some of these cases it will be impracticable, burdensome, and often irrelevant for the farmer to demonstrate accurate yields, especially if a variety of produce is harvested and then sold to the public only hours later. In such cases, past reliable history of income and expenses or cash receipts may be more useful in projecting the future production revenue of a field, greenhouse, or operation. Also, if an operator is changing crop from year to year to meet changing market demands, then production for the past 2 or 3 years may not be applicable to their production model. This modification allows FSA to assist operations that otherwise may have difficulty meeting or documenting production and yield history and will provide sufficient information for a loan official to determine eligibility and feasibility. FSA believes the lower loan limit will mitigate much of the risk of losses.
For incomplete applications, FSA proposes to follow existing direct loan processing procedures. Following current procedures, FSA will inform the applicant, through written correspondence, of any missing items needed to complete the application prior to established regulatory deadlines.
Since MLs are OLs, applicants will be subject to existing OL eligibility requirements. However, FSA proposes to add flexibility in meeting the managerial ability requirement. Current regulations in 7 CFR 764.101(i) require that an OL applicant show managerial ability through the following:
• Has obtained a 4-year college degree in agricultural business, horticulture, animal science, agronomy, or other agricultural-related field;
• Has on-the-job training, such as currently working on a farm as part of an apprenticeship program;
• Has farming experience, such as be an owner, manager, or operator of a farm business for at least one entire production cycle; or
• Have obtained and successfully repaid one FSA Youth-OL.
For ML applicants FSA proposes to add flexibility that will allow applicants to meet the eligibility requirement through either (1) a past association with an agriculture-related organization, such as 4–H Club or Future Farmers of America (FFA), that demonstrates experience in a related enterprise; or (2) by seeking, receiving, and applying guidance on how to manage their own start-up farm operation under an apprenticeship relationship. Only a written description of the current or future apprenticeship will be required in order to determine eligibility.
Meeting the managerial requirement through the agriculture-related organization experience will require the applicant to self certify on the application their involvement, detailing how that experience provides them with the ability to succeed with the operation they seek to finance with ML funds.
The apprenticeship relationship will allow an ML applicant to receive applied guidance and direction from an individual with the skills and knowledge pertinent to the successful operation of the farm enterprise being operated by the applicant. FSA expects that the applicant will consult with the mentor over the course of the production cycle (including issues of crop planning, purchasing from vendors, crop culture or animal husbandry, pest and disease management, networking groups and associations, harvest, marketing, etc.) while operating their own farm and take the initiative to seek and apply advice as appropriate to their needs. Successful completion of the apprenticeship through the first operating cycle will be required as a condition of the loan. FSA loan officials will monitor the borrower's progress and work with the borrower to ensure successful completion of the apprenticeship program during the first operating cycle. If unforeseen circumstances prevent successful completion, FSA loan officials will provide additional guidance to assist the borrower in
This expansion of management ability offers the opportunity for ML borrowers to gain the minimum of 3 years farm and management experience needed as part of eligibility for FSA's Farm Ownership (FO) Program, a loan program for the purchase of farm real estate. For those applicants who were not raised in a farming background, or do not have the educational experience necessary to meet the farm managerial ability requirements, or do not have the opportunity to gain management experience while working for someone else's farm operation, the ML process can provide a path to eventual ownership of a family farm.
FSA is proposing that the ML application process can be used for an annual or term OL up to a maximum of $35,000. ML applicants would be required to have an outstanding OL principal balance to FSA of no more than $35,000 after the loan is closed. Since the gross value of farm production is usually less than $25,000 for the majority of small income producing farming operations, financing needs for annual production cost are expected to be below the $35,000 maximum loan amount. FSA believes that this loan limit would provide sufficient levels of capital to small operations, which can include beginning farmers, truck farms, niche operations, CSA operations, and operations owned by immigrants who may need assistance establishing themselves in the farming community. Through this proposed rule, FSA is requesting comments on all aspects of the proposed ML process and is specifically interested in comments regarding the limitation of the loan amount.
FSA is proposing that MLs must be secured by collateral worth at least 100 percent of the loan amount. This differs from the current requirement in 7 CFR 764.104(c) that requires collateral worth at least 150 percent of the loan amount if available. Loans for improvements to farm real estate, such as well drilling, small barn or shed construction, or underground irrigation, may be secured by equipment, foundation livestock, or similar chattel security, if available, as an alternative to a lien on real estate, provided the 100 percent security requirement is met. A lien on real estate will only be required when other security is not available to meet the 100 percent security requirement. For an ML applicant, FSA can take a lien on equipment, or other available security, instead of taking a lien on real estate. Crops and livestock products will be taken as security for annual operating MLs only when other security available does not provide the minimum 100 percent security requirement. For example, when an ML is used to finance cash crops such as vegetables that are marketed at a farmers market, or when produce is grown in measures such as rows, the applicant may choose to offer a tractor as security instead of a lien on the crop. Some start-up or small family farms may not have sufficient equity in equipment or may be renting equipment and, therefore, a cash crop is all that is available to secure an annual ML. In this case, a lien on the crop produced with loan funds may provide security for the loan. FSA believes that flexibility in security requirements is another tool in meeting the needs of small family farms by providing affordable credit alternatives to credit card and high interest financing.
Other existing and applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to development of operating plans, loan processing and closing, use of loan funds, loan servicing, and environmental requirements not specifically amended by this proposed rule will apply to MLs, like other OLs.
The Lo-Doc OL application process is not widely used, for example only 3 percent of OLs obligated in FY 2010 were Lo-Doc loans. As a result of the Lo-Doc application process not being used, FSA has determined that a new program that changes not only the application process but also some eligibility and security requirements would be more appropriate rather than attempting to revise the Lo-Doc process. A large percentage of applicants that could have applied for a Lo-Doc OL will be able to apply for an ML. Therefore, FSA proposes to remove the Lo-Doc provisions from the
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand. For example:
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Is the material logically organized?
• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FSA has determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons explained below. Consequently, FSA has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
The term small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, a small business will be as described in the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Category (13 CFR
Overall, this is a new application process and greater options for eligibility and security for small loans within the existing OL Program, so theoretically some of the loans could be made under the existing program. Therefore, small entities in two credit segments have to be considered for this analysis. One segment is the number of existing borrowers who might take advantage of the modifications in eligibility for future loans. The other segment is the number of new borrowers who might never have applied for an FSA operating loan without the modifications. The number of existing borrowers who might make use of the application, eligibility, and security modifications for future loans can be precisely estimated using fiscal year 2011 direct operating loan data. Given that the maximum borrowing limit is $35,000 as proposed in the rule, it is estimated there would be at most 3,340 borrowers with $102.7 million in loans in this segment. However since these are existing borrowers with the same credit needs, this segment will have no additional economic impact. Only the demand by additional borrowers will have an incremental economic impact. This additional demand is more difficult to estimate. Preliminary estimates assume the new borrowers will be younger, below the age of 35, and have relatively low annual sales, less than $10,000 annually. Using data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, this segment of producers consists of about 14,434 primary operators. Historically FSA direct operating loans have captured only 2 percent of the agricultural credit market, so fewer than 300 borrowers will probably be added. Therefore, about 4,000 entities could be affected by this rule with an economic impact of only about $10.5 million (300 new borrowers times $35,000 in loans per borrower).
Furthermore, the minimal regulatory requirements will impact large and small businesses equally as part of the loan making process since MLs are distinguished based on the size of the loan. ML applicants will have a lower paperwork burden that will be commensurate with the smaller loan amount due to a reduction in documentation required for these loans. Therefore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, FSA is certifying that there would not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Due to the limited number of entities, the economic effects from any additional lending are unlikely to have a substantial impact on entities of any size.
The environmental impacts of this proposed rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR 799 and 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G). FSA concluded that simplifying the application process and adding flexibility for meeting loan eligibility and security requirements to encourage small farm operation participation in its OL program explained in this proposed rule are administrative in nature and will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment either individually or cumulatively. The environmental responsibilities for each prospective applicant will not change from the current process followed for all FLP actions (7 CFR 1940.309). Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental impact statement on this proposed rule.
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons set forth in the Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities within this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” The provisions of this proposed rule will not have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies that conflict with such provision or which otherwise impede their full implementation. The rule will not have retroactive effect.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule would not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor would this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed for compliance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” The Executive Order imposes requirements on the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. The USDA Office of Tribal Relations has concluded that the policies contained in this rule do not, to our knowledge, preempt Tribal law.
As part of an ongoing collaboration, FSA provided government-to-government consultation with Tribal governments to discuss this proposed rule. In February, 2012, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) held three teleconference sessions for all federally recognized Tribal governments. The teleconference session was also offered to intertribal organizations, and individual Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The purpose of these teleconferences was to present information about important program changes and the new Microloan Program. FSA also provided an overview of the subjects to be discussed with the invitation letter prior to the teleconferences. These Tribal Consultation conversations and presentations were held to help guide
FSA will continue to respond in a timely and meaningful manner to all Tribal government requests for Tribal consultation about this rule and its implementation and will provide additional avenues, such as webinars and teleconferences, to periodically host collaborative conversations with Tribal leaders and their representatives about ways to improve this program and rule in Indian Country.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the following new information collection request that supports the new ML program is being submitted to OMB. FSA is requesting comments from interested individuals and organizations on the information collection activities related to the ML application process as described in this proposed rule. FSA is currently modifying the loan application process in order to provide loans to eligible borrowers through the ML process.
This information collection request will be incorporated into FSA's approved information collection of the same title and OMB control number 0560–0237.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection and to help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for OMB approval.
FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Accounting, Loan programs-agriculture, Rural areas.
Agriculture, Disaster assistance, Loan programs-agriculture.
For reasons discussed above, FSA proposes to amend 7 CFR chapter VII as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 761 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301 and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
2. Amend § 761.2 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove the abbreviation “Lo-Doc” and add an abbreviation, in alphabetical order, for “ML Microloan”;
b. In paragraph (b), add definitions, in alphabetical order, for “Apprentice” and “Microloan”; and
c. In paragraph (b), remove the definition of “Low-Documentation Operating loan.”
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
3. Amend § 761.103 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (b), introductory text;
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (d) through (f); and
c. Add paragraph (c).
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) Except for ML, the initial assessment must evaluate, at a minimum, the:
(c) For ML, the Agency will complete a narrative that will evaluate, at a minimum, the:
(1) Type of farming operation and adequacy of resources;
(2) Amount of assistance necessary to cover expenses to carry out the proposed farming plan, including building an adequate equity base;
(3) The goals of the operation;
(4) The financial viability of the plan, including a marketing plan and available production history, as applicable;
(5) Supervisory plan; and
(6) Training plan.
4. Amend § 761.104 by redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as (f) and (g), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) For MLs, when projected yields and unit prices cannot be determined as set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section because the data is not available or practicable, documentation from other reliable sources may be used.
4. The authority citation for part 764 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301 and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
5. Amend § 764.1 paragraph (b)(2) by adding the words “ML and” immediately following the word “including”.
6. Revise § 764.51 paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) For an ML request, all of the following criteria must be met:
(1) The loan requested is:
(i) To pay annual or term operating expenses, and
(ii) $35,000 or less and the applicant's total outstanding Agency OL debt at the time of loan closing will be $35,000 or less;
(2) The applicant must submit the following:
(i) Items (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (9), and (11) of paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Financial and production records for the most recent production cycle, if available, and practicable to project the cash flow of the operating cycle, and
(iv) Verification of all non-farm income relied upon for repayment; and
(3) The Agency may require an ML applicant to submit any other information listed in paragraph (b) of this section upon request when specifically needed to make a determination on the loan application.
7. Amend § 764.101 as follows:
a. In paragraph (i)(3) at the end of the first sentence add the text “or the applicant may have obtained and successfully repaid one FSA Youth-OL”; and
b. Add paragraph (i)(4).
The addition reads as follows:
(i) * * *
(4)
(i) Certification of a past association with an agriculture-related organization, such as 4–H Club or FFA, that demonstrates experience in a related enterprise; or
(ii) A written description of a self directed apprenticeship for the first operating cycle. The applicant will agree as a condition of the loan to seek, receive, and apply guidance, during the first production cycle of production and marketing typical to the applicant's specific operation, with an individual who is knowledgeable of production and marketing practices that are pertinent to the applicant's operation and will provide a developmental partnership to share knowledge, skills, information, and perspective of agriculture to foster professional growth. The intent of this apprenticeship is to provide the applicant with the skills and knowledge necessary to manage their operation on their own. They may continue the apprenticeship beyond the first operating cycle, but they are not required to do so.
8. Amend § 764.103 as follows:
a. Amend paragraph (c), by adding “ML” after the words “downpayment loans”; and
b. Amend the last sentence of paragraph (e) by removing the words “conservation loans” and adding, in their place, the words “CL, ML”.
9. Amend § 764.251 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (a), introductory text; and
b. Revise paragraph (b).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) OL funds may only be used for:
(b) ML funds may be used for any OL purpose.
10. Amend § 764.255 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (b), introductory text; and
b. Add paragraph (c).
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) Except for MLs, by a:
* * *
(c) For MLs:
(1) All loans must be secured by assets having a security value of at least 100 percent of the loan amount.
(2) A lien is required on foundation livestock or equipment purchased with term ML funds.
(3) Improvements to farm real estate (such as, well drilling, small barns, storage sheds, or underground irrigation) may be secured by equipment, foundation livestock, or similar chattel security if available and adequate to meet the 100 percent security requirement. A lien on real estate will only be taken if other security is not available to adequately meet 100 percent security requirement.
(4) Crops and livestock products may be taken as security for annual operating MLs only when other available security does not meet the 100 percent security requirement.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule; request for public comment.
This proposed rule establishes procedures to implement section 1024(a)(1)(C) of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C)). Pursuant to this provision, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) has the authority to supervise a nonbank covered person when the Bureau has reasonable cause to determine, by order, after notice to the person and a reasonable opportunity to respond, that such person is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services. This proposed rule sets forth the procedures by which the Bureau may subject a nonbank covered person to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C). Under 12 U.S.C. 5514, the Bureau is authorized to require reports from, and conduct examinations of, entities made subject to its supervisory authority in this manner.
Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2012.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and will be subject to public disclosure. Submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. Do not include sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, such as name and address information, email addresses, or telephone numbers.
Christopher Young, Senior Counsel, Office of Nonbank Supervision, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435–7408.
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act)
Under 12 U.S.C. 5514, the Bureau's supervision authority for nonbank covered persons varies by consumer financial product or service market. Specifically, 12 U.S.C. 5514 grants the Bureau authority to supervise nonbank covered persons that offer or provide to consumers: (1) Origination, brokerage, or servicing of residential mortgage loans secured by real estate, and related mortgage loan modification or foreclosure relief services; (2) private education loans; and (3) payday loans.
The Bureau is authorized to supervise nonbank covered persons subject to 12 U.S.C. 5514 by requiring the submission of reports and conducting examinations to: (1) Assess compliance with the requirements of Federal consumer financial law; (2) obtain information about such persons' activities and compliance systems or procedures; and (3) detect and assess risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and services.
This Proposed Rule, if adopted, would govern the process by which a nonbank covered person may become subject to the supervisory authority of the Bureau pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C). In this Proposal, the Bureau has endeavored to establish an efficient, expeditious, and fair process to exercise the Bureau's authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C). Under the proposed process, the Bureau would provide a nonbank covered person a notice (Notice or Notice of Reasonable Cause) stating that the Bureau may have reasonable cause to determine that such covered person is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services. The Proposal establishes mechanisms to provide the nonbank covered person a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Notice. The Bureau believes that the procedures established by this Proposed Rule would provide a recipient of a Notice (respondent) with a more robust process than required by Section 1024(a)(1)(C). For example, to satisfy the statutory requirement that the Bureau provide a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Bureau need not offer respondents an opportunity to participate in a supplemental oral response. The Proposed Rule, however, if adopted,
To provide a reasonable opportunity to respond to a Notice, the Proposed Rule would require that a Notice include a description of the basis for the assertion that the Bureau may have reasonable cause to determine that a respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services. A Notice is intended to afford a respondent the opportunity to evaluate the assertions set forth therein and to formulate an appropriate response. The Proposed Rule would provide a respondent with two opportunities to respond to a Notice—first in writing and then, if requested by a respondent, through a supplemental oral response generally to be conducted by telephone. Under the Proposed Rule, a respondent would be required to include with the written response records, documents, or other items supporting the arguments set forth in the response that a respondent wants the Bureau's Assistant Director for Nonbank Supervision (Assistant Director) and the Bureau's Director (Director) to consider. A supplemental oral response, if requested, would provide a respondent with the opportunity to present arguments to the Bureau's Assistant Director or her or his designee.
Under the Proposed Rule, a Notice of Reasonable Cause would
Under the Proposed Rule, the Bureau's Deputy Assistant Director for Nonbank Supervision (Deputy) would commence a proceeding by issuing a Notice. The response (both written and oral—if any) would then be considered by the Bureau's Assistant Director, who would provide to the Bureau's Director a recommended determination. The Director would make the final determination in any proceeding by adopting without revision, modifying, or rejecting the Assistant Director's recommended determination. The result would be either an order subjecting a respondent to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514, or a notice stating that a respondent is not subject, as a result of the proceeding, to the Bureau's supervisory authority.
In addition, under the Proposed Rule there would be two ways in which a respondent could consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority. First, the Proposed Rules provides for an expedited method by which a respondent may execute the consent agreement form attached to the Notice that is served on the respondent and file it with the Assistant Director in lieu of a response. Second, under the Proposed Rule, at any time during a proceeding, a respondent may voluntarily consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority under such terms as the parties may agree.
The Proposed Rule also generally provides that if a determination by the Director results in an order bringing a respondent within the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514, the respondent would be permitted, after two years (and no more than annually thereafter), to petition the Director for the termination of such an order. However, under the Proposed Rule, where a respondent voluntarily consents to the Bureau's supervisory authority for a specified period of time, the respondent would not be permitted to petition for the termination of supervision during the period specified in the consent agreement. A petition for termination of an order provides a method for a respondent to inform the Bureau of actions taken and progress made to reduce the risks to consumers after the issuance of the order. Further, the Proposed Rule makes clear that nothing in the rule affects the relief the Bureau may seek in any civil action or administrative adjudication.
Finally, the Proposed Rule provides that if the Bureau otherwise issues a notice of charges against a person under 12 CFR 1081.200,
The Bureau is issuing this Proposed Rule pursuant to its authority under: (1) 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1), which grants the Bureau the authority to prescribe rules as may be necessary and appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions of those laws; (2) 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C), which authorizes the Bureau to supervise a nonbank covered person when it has reasonable cause to determine, by order, after notice to the person, and a reasonable opportunity to respond, that such person is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services; and (3) 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(7), which authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules to facilitate the supervision of nonbank covered persons under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1).
The Proposed Rule relates solely to agency procedure and practice and, thus, is not subject to the 30-day delayed effective date for substantive rules under section 553(d) of the APA.
Proposed § 1091.100 sets forth the scope and purpose of the Proposed Rule. It states that the part sets forth procedures to implement 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C) and to facilitate the supervision of nonbank covered persons under 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(7).
Proposed § 1091.101 defines terms used in the Proposed Rule. If a term is defined in the Dodd-Frank Act, the Proposal generally incorporates that definition, with clarifications and modifications where necessary. The Bureau seeks comment on each of the definitions set forth in the Proposed Rule and any suggested clarification, modifications, or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.102 relates to the issuance of a Notice of Reasonable Cause, which initiates the proceedings that culminate in a determination by the Director under § 1091.109 of the Proposed Rule, or a respondent's voluntary consent to supervision by the Bureau. Section 1091.102 provides that the Deputy is authorized to issue a Notice of Reasonable Cause and, consistent with 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C), that such Notice shall be based on complaints collected by the Bureau, or on information from other sources.
The Bureau seeks comment on the issuance of a Notice of Reasonable Cause and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.103 details the required content of a Notice. To ensure that a respondent has a reasonable opportunity to address the substance of a Notice, proposed § 1091.103 provides that a Notice must set forth, among other things, the basis for the assertion that the Bureau may have reasonable cause to determine that a respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.
Under proposed § 1091.103, a Notice must also contain a statement informing a respondent how to file a timely response, and of the required contents of a response. A Notice must also inform a respondent that he or she may request a supplemental oral response, and that a respondent may, in lieu of filing a response, voluntarily consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 by filing an executed consent form attached to a Notice served on a respondent. Section 1091.103 further provides that a Notice shall inform a respondent that a failure to respond, as set forth in a Notice, may result in a determination by the Director without further opportunity to respond by the respondent. As set forth in proposed § 1091.103, a Notice must also inform a respondent of the various timelines associated with the process.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed contents of a Notice and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.104 provides that a Notice shall be served pursuant to methods including electronic transmission (where a respondent has consented), personal service, first class U.S. Mail, or commercial courier or express delivery service. Proposed § 1091.104 further requires that the Deputy submit a copy of a Notice and any attached documents, records or other items to the Assistant Director, who shall proceed as set forth in the Proposal.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed requirements relating to the service of a Notice and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.105 sets forth the requirements for responding to a Notice of Reasonable Cause. Specifically, § 1091.105 provides that any response must be filed within 20 days of service of a Notice, and the failure to file a timely response shall result in a waiver of a respondent's right to respond, authorize the Assistant Director to issue a recommended determination, and the Director a final determination, on the basis of the Notice. Proposed § 1091.105 further provides that a respondent may respond to a Notice of Reasonable Cause either by contesting that it is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services, or by voluntarily consenting to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514. Where a respondent wishes to contest the assertions in a Notice, proposed § 1091.105 mandates that the response: (1) Set forth the basis for a respondent's contention that the respondent should not be subject to supervision pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C); (2) include all records, documents, or other items upon which a respondent relies; and (3) include an affidavit signed by the respondent attesting that the information contained in the response is true, accurate, and without any omission that would cause the response to be materially misleading. The Proposed Rule further provides that documents, records or other items submitted by a respondent with a response shall be deemed confidential supervisory information under 12 CFR 1070.2(i)(1)(iv). In addition, under proposed § 1091.105, if a respondent wishes also to present arguments in a supplemental oral response, the respondent must make such a request in the response. A failure to do so will constitute a waiver of a respondent's opportunity to present a supplemental oral response.
Finally, proposed § 1091.105 states that the failure to timely raise an issue in, or submit records, documents, or other items with, the response constitutes a waiver of a respondent's right to raise the issue, or submit the records, documents, or other items, at any future stage of consideration under this Proposed Rule and in any petition for judicial review. The Bureau intends for the waiver to remove any incentive for a respondent to wait until after filing a response, such as at a supplemental oral response or during judicial review, to raise an argument or present documents or other information for the first time. This will help ensure that the Bureau is aware of all relevant issues upon which a respondent wishes to rely at the earliest opportunity before reaching a determination under this Proposed Rule.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed contents of and requirements relating to the response and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.106 provides that a respondent may request a supplemental oral response and sets forth the procedures for the conduct of a supplemental oral response. Under proposed § 1091.106, supplemental oral responses will generally be held via telephone. In the Bureau's view, conducting such oral responses by telephone allows for more flexibility and is less burdensome than conducting an in person response.
Proposed § 1091.106 further provides that the Assistant Director may impose limitations on the conduct of a supplemental oral response and provides a non-exhaustive set of such limitations. The Bureau believes that providing the Assistant Director with authority to impose such limitations will help ensure that a supplemental oral response focuses on a respondent's and Deputy's arguments supporting their respective legal and factual assertions in the matter.
Proposed § 1091.106 further makes clear that no discovery will be permitted, and no witnesses will be called, in connection with a supplemental oral response. This limitation is appropriate given the informal nature of the procedures set forth in this Proposed Rule. The prohibition on discovery and the calling of witnesses in connection with a supplemental oral response also furthers the Bureau's objective of providing a timely and efficient determination process, saving both the Bureau and respondents the time and expenses typically expended on discovery.
Proposed § 1091.106 also prescribes the timing of a supplemental oral response. Specifically, under the proposed section, within 14 days of receiving a respondent's request for a supplemental oral response, the Assistant Director shall serve on a respondent a notice advising of the date, time, and relevant information relating to the conduct of a supplemental oral response, with a copy to the Deputy. To allow a respondent and the Deputy sufficient time to prepare for a supplemental oral response, and to make arrangements to participate, proposed § 1091.106 provides that a supplemental oral response shall be scheduled not less than ten days after the date of such service. Finally, proposed § 1091.106 states that if a respondent fails to participate in a scheduled supplemental oral response, such a failure constitutes a respondent's waiver of the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed procedures for a supplemental oral response and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed 1091.107 provides for filing of papers in a proceeding under the Proposed Rule by electronic transmission under such conditions as specified by the Assistant Director or Director. This section also authorizes other methods of filing and service if a respondent demonstrates electronic filing is not practicable and the Assistant Director or Director permits an alternative method of filing or service.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed manner of filing papers and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.108 provides that the Assistant Director shall make a recommended determination and submit to the Director either a proposed order that would bring a respondent within the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514, or a proposed notification containing the determination that a respondent is not subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 on the basis of the proceeding. Under proposed § 1091.108, if a respondent has not voluntarily consented to the Bureau's supervisory authority, and has not requested the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response, a recommended determination shall be made not later than 45 days from the receipt of a timely-filed response, or not later than 45 days after the service of a Notice of Reasonable Cause when a respondent fails to file a timely response. If a respondent has requested the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response, a recommended determination shall be made not later than 90 days after the service of a Notice of Reasonable Cause. Proposed § 1091.108 further sets forth the required content of the Assistant Director's recommended determination, and the documents and items that must accompany the recommended
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed content of, and procedures relating to, the recommended determination and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.109 provides that, not later than 45 days after receipt of the Assistant Director's recommended determination, the Director shall make a final determination by adopting without revision, modifying, or rejecting the Assistant Director's recommended determination. Under the proposed section, the Director shall issue to a respondent, with copies to the Assistant Director and Deputy, an order bringing a respondent within the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514, or a notification containing the determination that a respondent is not subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 on the basis of the proceeding. Proposed § 1091.109 also provides that the Director may rely on the assistance and advice only of decisional employees in reaching a final determination.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed content of, and procedures relating to, the determination and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.110 provides that a respondent may petition the Director for the termination of an order bringing a respondent within the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514, and sets forth the required contents of such a petition. Under proposed § 1091.110, a respondent may so petition no sooner than two years after the issuance of the order, and no more frequently than annually thereafter, except that in the case of a voluntary consent to supervision, a respondent may not petition for early termination of the supervisory authority period set forth in the consent agreement. A petition is a respondent's opportunity to inform the Bureau of the actions taken and the progress made to reduce risk to consumers after the issuance of an order. A petition should set forth the reasons supporting a respondent's petition for the termination of the order. Under proposed § 1091.110, the Deputy would be permitted to file a response to a petition for termination setting forth the Deputy's recommendation to terminate or modify the order, or to deny the petition, and the reasons supporting such a recommendation within 30 days of her or his receipt of a copy of a petition. Proposed § 1091.110 further provides that within 90 days of a respondent submitting a petition for termination, the Director shall either terminate or modify the order, or deny the petition. This section also specifies the manner in which a petition for termination must be filed.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed content of, and procedures relating to, the petition for termination of an order and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.111 provides common rules for computing time limits, taking into account the effect of weekends and holidays on time periods that are ten days or less. This section also sets forth when filing or service is effective. With regard to time limits for responsive papers, proposed § 1091.111 incorporates a three-day extension for mail service, and a one-day extension for overnight delivery and electronic transmission. A one-day extension for service by electronic transmission reflects that electronic transmissions may result in delays in actual receipt by the person served.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed construction of time limits and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.112 provides that requests for the extension of time may be granted in the limited circumstances in which the extension is necessary to prevent substantial prejudice. The Bureau intends for this section to further the Bureau's goal of ensuring the timely conclusion of matters. Accordingly, the section provides that requests for the extension of time are strongly disfavored and may only be granted when a party makes a strong showing that the denial of the request would substantially prejudice the party. Finally, proposed § 1091.112 states that deadlines for action by the Assistant Director or Director established in this Proposed Rule confer no substantive rights on respondents.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed procedures relating to the change of time limits and effect of deadlines and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.113 provides that nothing in the Proposed Rule shall affect a person's ability to voluntarily consent, at any time, to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 as mutually agreed to by the parties. Voluntary consent under this section is an alternative to voluntarily consenting to the Bureau's supervision as provided under proposed § 1091.103(b), which allows a respondent to execute and file a consent agreement form in lieu of filing a written response. Proposed § 1091.113 also provides that a consent agreement that specifies the period during which the person will be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority precludes such a person from petitioning for the termination of the order under proposed § 1091.110 during the agreed-to supervisory period. Additionally, proposed § 1091.113 provides that a person entering into a consent agreement waives any right to judicial review of that agreement.
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed procedures relating to a respondent's voluntary consent to the Bureau's authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
Proposed § 1091.114 provides that if the Bureau issues a notice of charges against a person under 12 CFR 1081.200,
The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed procedures relating to providing notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C) in an adjudicative proceeding brought by the Bureau pursuant to 12 part CFR 1081.200 and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
This section clarifies that nothing in this part shall be construed to limit the relief the Bureau may seek in any civil action or administrative adjudication.
The Bureau seeks comment on this section and any suggested modifications or alternatives.
The Proposed Rule relates solely to agency procedure and practice and, thus, is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA.
In developing the Proposed Rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts, and has consulted or offered to consult with the prudential regulators and the Federal Trade Commission, including with regard to consistency with any prudential market, or systemic objectives administered by such agencies.
Under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C), the Bureau has the authority to supervise any nonbank covered person that it “has reasonable cause to determine, by order, after notice * * * and a reasonable opportunity * * * to respond” that such covered person “is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.” The Proposed Rule is intended to provide an efficient, expeditious, and fair process to implement 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C).
For major provisions of the Proposal, the Bureau considered the benefits and costs of certain alternatives. For example, the Proposed Rule would provide respondents an opportunity to participate in a supplementary oral response, which would generally be conducted via telephone. The Bureau believes that the proposed approach, if adopted, would benefit covered persons by offering an additional method of responding to a Notice compared with the alternative of not permitting any oral response. At the same time, the Bureau believes that the proposed approach would be less costly than the alternative of requiring that all oral responses be conducted in person at a designated location. Also in connection with supplemental oral responses, the Proposed Rule would permit, but not require, a respondent to be represented by counsel. The Bureau considered requiring representation by counsel, but opted to provide respondents with the opportunity to receive the benefits of representation, while not mandating that respondents incur the costs of such representation.
The Proposed Rule also permits respondents to consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority under standard terms in lieu of filing a response, or to enter into a negotiated agreement at any time consenting to the Bureau's supervisory authority. The Bureau believes that this approach, if adopted, would provide a streamlined resolution process that would reduce the costs to the Bureau and those respondents who wish to consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority, compared to the alternative of permitting only negotiated consent agreements.
The Proposed Rule will have no unique impact on insured depository institutions or insured credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets as described in 12 U.S.C. 5516(a). Nor would the Proposed Rule have a unique impact on rural consumers.
The Bureau requests comments on the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the Proposed Rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Act.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.
As discussed above in section V, a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this rulemaking. The Proposed Rule therefore is not a “rule” as defined by the RFA.
An IRFA would not otherwise be required because the Proposed Rule, if
The Bureau has determined that the Rule does not impose any new recordkeeping, reporting or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Administrative practice and procedures, Consumer protection, Credit, Trade practices.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau proposes to add part 1091 to Chapter X in Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as set forth below.
Sections 1022(b)(1), 1024(a)(1)(C), and 1024(b)(7) of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111–203 (12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1), 5514(a)(1)(C), and 5514(b)(7)).
This part implements section 1024(a)(1)(C) of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Public Law 111–203 (12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C)) (Dodd-Frank Act), and establishes rules to facilitate the Bureau's supervision authority over certain nonbank covered persons pursuant to section 1024(b)(7) of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(7)).
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) 12 U.S.C. 5481(15) and is offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; or
(2) Clause (i), (iii), (ix), or (x) of 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A) and is delivered, offered, or provided in connection with a consumer financial product or service referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.
(1) Assisting the Deputy in either determining whether to issue a Notice of Reasonable Cause, or presenting the Deputy's position in support of a Notice of Reasonable Cause, either in writing or in a supplemental oral response, to the Assistant Director; or
(2) Assisting the Assistant Director in the preparation of a recommended determination.
(1) Any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service; and
(2) Any affiliate of a person described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph if such affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.
(a) The Deputy is authorized to issue a Notice of Reasonable Cause to a nonbank covered person stating that the Bureau may have reasonable cause to determine that the nonbank covered person is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.
(b) A Notice of Reasonable Cause shall be based on:
(1) Complaints collected through the system under 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3); or
(2) Information from other sources.
(c) Except as provided in § 1091.114, a notice required under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C) shall contain the information set forth in § 1091.103, and be served on respondent as described in § 1091.104.
(a) A Notice of Reasonable Cause shall contain the following:
(1) A description of the basis for the assertion that the Bureau may have reasonable cause to determine that a
(2) A statement informing a respondent that:
(i) A respondent may file with the Assistant Director a written response to a Notice of Reasonable Cause no later than 20 days after a Notice is served on a respondent;
(ii) The written response shall include the elements addressed in § 1091.105(b):
(iii) A respondent may request in its response to a Notice an opportunity to present a supplemental oral response to the Assistant Director as set forth in § 1091.106;
(iv) A failure to timely file a response to a Notice shall constitute a waiver of a respondent's right to respond, and may result in a default determination by the Director, based on the Notice, that a respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services and the issuance of a decision and order subjecting a respondent to the Bureau's supervisory authority pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C);
(v) The Assistant Director shall serve a respondent with a notice of the date and time of a supplemental oral response, if a respondent has requested the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response, within 14 days of the Assistant Director's receipt of a timely-filed response; and
(vi) If a respondent has not requested the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response, the Assistant Director shall, not later than 45 days of receiving a timely-filed response, or not later than 45 days after the service of a Notice of Reasonable Cause when a respondent fails to file a timely response, provide a recommended determination to the Director including either a proposed decision and order subjecting a respondent to the Bureau's supervisory authority pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C), or a proposed notification that the Bureau has determined not to subject a respondent to the Bureau's supervisory authority at that time, pursuant to § 1091.108.
(b) A Notice shall be accompanied by a form of consent agreement by which a respondent may voluntarily consent to the Bureau's authority to supervise a respondent under 12 U.S.C. 5514. A completed and executed form of consent agreement under this paragraph:
(1) Shall not constitute an admission that a respondent is a nonbank covered person that has engaged, or is engaging, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services;
(2) Shall result in an order by the Director that a respondent is subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 for a period of two years from the date of such order; and
(3) Shall include a provision that a respondent entering into a consent agreement waives any right to judicial review of such consent agreement.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Bureau to produce any documents or information to a respondent other items than as set forth in this section.
(a) A Notice shall be served on a respondent as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(b) The Deputy shall promptly submit a copy of a Notice and a copy of the certificate of service to the Assistant. The Assistant Director shall proceed as set forth in this Proposal upon receipt of a Notice.
(a)
(b)
(2) The response shall include all documents, records or other evidence a respondent wishes to use to support the arguments or assertions set forth in the response. Documents, records or other items submitted by a respondent with a response shall be deemed confidential supervisory information under 12 CFR 1070.2(i)(1)(iv).
(3) Any request to present a supplemental oral response must be included in the response. A respondent's failure to request to present a supplemental oral response shall constitute the respondent's waiver of the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response.
(4) A response shall include an affidavit or declaration, made by the individual respondent if a natural person, or, if a corporate or other entity that is not a natural person, by an officer, managing or general member or partner authorized to represent the respondent, affirming that the response is true and accurate and does not contain any omissions that would cause the response to be materially misleading.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this paragraph, a respondent may respond by voluntarily consenting to the Bureau's authority to supervise the respondent under 12 U.S.C. 5514 by completing and executing the consent agreement form provided to the respondent with a Notice of Reasonable Cause in accordance with § 1091.103(b).
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) A respondent may request in a response under § 1091.105 the opportunity to present to the Assistant Director a supplemental oral response in support of a respondent's assertion that the respondent is not a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.
(b) The conduct of a supplemental oral response shall be subject to the following procedures:
(1) A supplemental oral response shall be conducted by telephone unless the Assistant Director directs that it be conducted in some other manner.
(2) The Assistant Director may impose any limitations on the conduct of a supplemental oral response, including but not limited to establishing a time limit for the presentation of a supplemental oral response, and limiting the subjects to be addressed in a supplemental oral response.
(3) There shall be no discovery permitted or witnesses called in connection with a supplemental oral response.
(4) If a respondent is a corporate or other entity, and not a natural person, the respondent shall be represented in any supplemental oral response by:
(i) An officer, managing or general member or partner authorized to represent the respondent; or
(ii) An attorney in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state.
(5) If a respondent is a natural person, the respondent shall be represented in any supplemental oral response by:
(i) Herself or himself; or
(ii) An attorney in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state.
(6) The Assistant Director shall cause a recording of a supplemental oral response to be made. A respondent may purchase a copy or transcript of the recording at the respondent's own expense.
(c) The Deputy may participate in any supplemental oral response conducted under this section.
(d) The Assistant Director shall serve on a respondent, within 14 days after the Assistant Director receives the respondent's timely-filed response requesting a supplemental oral response, a notice setting forth the date, time and general information relating to the conduct of a supplemental oral response. The date of a supplemental oral response shall be scheduled not less than ten days after the date the respondent is served with the notice of supplemental oral response.
(e) The notice of supplemental oral response shall be served on a respondent pursuant to § 1091.107.
(f) The Assistant Director shall send a copy of the notice of supplemental oral response to the Deputy.
(g) A respondent's failure to participate in a supplemental oral response scheduled by the Assistant Director shall constitute the respondent's waiver of the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response.
Unless otherwise specified by the Assistant Director or Director, a respondent shall file the response and any other paper with the Executive Secretary at the mailing or electronic address provided by the Bureau, and the Assistant Director and Director shall serve any paper, other than a Notice as set forth in § 1091.104, on a respondent, by:
(a) Electronic transmission upon any condition specified by the Assistant Director or Director; or
(b) Any of the following methods if a respondent demonstrates electronic filing is not practicable and the Assistant Director or Director permits:
(1) Personal delivery;
(2) Delivery through a reliable commercial courier service or overnight delivery service; or
(3) Mailing the papers by first class, registered, certified, or Express mail.
(a) If a respondent did not voluntarily consent to the Bureau's supervision authority, and did not request the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response, not later than 45 days after receipt of a timely-filed response, or not later than 45 days after the service of a Notice of Reasonable Cause when a respondent fails to file a timely response, the Assistant Director shall make a recommended determination whether there is reasonable cause for the Bureau to determine that the respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services which should result in an order subjecting the respondent to the Bureau's authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C).
(b) If a respondent did request the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response, not later than 90 days after service of a Notice of Reasonable Cause, the Assistant Director shall make a recommended determination whether there is reasonable cause for the Bureau to determine that the respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services which should result in an order subjecting the respondent to the Bureau's authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C).
(c) Upon making the recommended determination described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the Assistant Director shall submit to the Director either:
(1) A proposed decision and order that would subject a respondent to the Bureau's supervisory authority pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C) if adopted by the Director; or
(2) A proposed notification that a respondent should not be subjected to the Bureau's supervisory authority
(d) Any proposed decision and order issued by the Assistant Director pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall set forth:
(1) A statement that the Assistant Director has preliminarily determined based on reasonable cause that a respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services;
(2) The basis for the Assistant Director's determination; and
(3) A proposed order directing that, pursuant to this determination, as of a specified date a respondent shall be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514.
(e)(1) The Assistant Director shall include with the recommended determination submitted to the Director copies of the following:
(i) The Notice of Reasonable Cause;
(ii) The record of service of a Notice of Reasonable Cause;
(iii) A respondent's response and any documents, records or other items filed with the written response;
(iv) Any document, record, or other item considered by the Assistant Director to be material in making a recommended determination; and
(v) A recording of a supplemental oral response, if a supplemental oral response was conducted, and/or a transcript if a transcript was prepared at a respondent's request or if requested by the Director.
(2) The requirement that the Assistant Director provide to the Director the items described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall confer no substantive rights on a respondent and any omission of an item may be cured by the Assistant Director to the extent applicable.
(a) Not later than 45 days after receipt of the Assistant Director's recommended determination, the Director shall, after considering the recommended determination and all documents, records, and other items submitted therewith by the Assistant Director, make a determination either adopting without revision, modifying, or rejecting the Assistant Director's recommended determination, and shall issue to respondent, with copies to the Assistant Director and the Deputy:
(1) A decision and order subjecting the respondent to the Bureau's supervisory authority pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C); or
(2) A notification that the Director has determined that the respondent is not subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C) as a result of the proceedings. Such notification shall have no precedential effect and shall not prevent the issuance of another Notice of Reasonable Cause pursuant to either § 1091.102, or the procedures set forth in § 1091.114, at any time, or the issuance of an order subjecting the respondent to the Bureau's authority pursuant to either of those sections.
(b) Any decision and order issued by the Director pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall set forth:
(1) That the Director adopts the Assistant Director's proposed decision and order without revision as the Director's decision and order; or that the Director rejects or modifies the Assistant Director's proposed determination for reasons set forth by the Director;
(2) A statement that the Director has determined that the Bureau has reasonable cause to determine that a respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services;
(3) The basis for the Director's determination, which may be an adoption of the basis set forth in Assistant Director's proposed decision; and
(4) An order directing that, pursuant to this determination, as of a specified date a respondent shall be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 and informing a respondent that a respondent may petition for termination of the Bureau's supervisory authority after two years from the date of the order, and no more than annually thereafter.
(c) Only decisional employees may advise and assist the Director in the consideration and disposition of a proceeding under this part.
(d) A decision and order issued pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall constitute final agency action under 5 U.S.C. 704.
(e) Any item required to be served on a respondent under this section shall be served pursuant to § 1091.107.
(a) Any person subject to an order issued pursuant to § 1091.109(a)(1) may, no sooner than two years after issuance of such an order and no more frequently than annually thereafter, petition the Director for termination of the order.
(b) A petition for termination submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall set forth the reasons supporting termination of the order, including any actions taken by a respondent since issuance of the order to address the conduct that led to issuance of the order, and may include any supporting information or evidence that the petitioner believes is relevant to the Director's determination of the matter.
(c) A petition for termination shall be filed by the petitioner with the Executive Secretary at the mailing or electronic address provided by the Bureau.
(d) The Director shall, promptly upon receipt of a petition for termination, send a copy of same to the Deputy.
(1) The Deputy may, within 30 days of her or his receipt of a copy of a petition for termination, file with the Director a response to the petition stating whether the Deputy recommends that the order should be terminated, modified, or that the petition for termination should be denied and the basis for such recommendation.
(2) The Deputy shall serve a copy of the response to a petition for termination on the petitioner at the time of filing it with the Director.
(e) Not later than 90 days after submission of a petition under paragraph (a) of this section, the Director shall issue a written decision either terminating or modifying the order, or denying the petition. If the Director modifies the order or denies the petition, the Director shall explain the basis for his or her decision with respect to the petition and send the written decision to the petitioner and the Deputy.
(1) The Director shall serve the written decision on a petition for termination of order on a respondent pursuant to § 1091.107.
(2) The Director shall send a copy of the written decision on a petition for termination of order to the Assistant Director and Deputy promptly upon issuing the written decision.
(f) Any item required to be served on a petitioner in this section shall be served pursuant to § 1091.107.
(g) The decision of the Director made pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section shall constitute final agency action under 5 U.S.C. 704.
(a)
(b)
(1) In the case of personal service or same day commercial courier delivery, upon actual receipt by the person served;
(2) In the case of overnight commercial delivery service, U.S. Express Mail delivery, or first class, registered, or certified mail, upon deposit in or delivery to an appropriate point of collection; or
(3) In the case of electronic transmission, including email, upon transmission.
(c)
(1) If service is made by first class, registered, or certified mail, add three calendar days to the prescribed period;
(2) If service is made by express mail or overnight delivery service, add one calendar day to the prescribed period; or
(3) If service is made by electronic transmission, add one calendar day to the prescribed period.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, the Assistant Director until the issuance of a recommended determination, or the Director at any time thereafter, may extend the time limits prescribed by this part or by any notice or order issued pursuant to this part. Any request for an extension of a time limit by a respondent must be for good cause shown, in writing, and filed with the Assistant Director or Director, as appropriate. The mere filing of a written request for an extension does not alleviate a respondent of the obligation to meet an applicable time limit absent written confirmation that an extension has been granted.
(b) In considering all requests for extensions of time filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the Assistant Director or Director, as appropriate, shall adhere to a policy of strongly disfavoring such requests, except in circumstances where the requesting party makes a strong showing that the denial of the request would substantially prejudice its case.
(c) Deadlines for action by the Deputy, Assistant Director or the Director established in this part confer no substantive rights on respondents.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision, pursuant to a consent agreement agreed to by the Bureau, a person may voluntarily consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514, and such voluntary consent agreement shall not be subject to any right to judicial review.
(b) The consent agreement of any person, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, that specifies the duration of time that such person will be subject to the Bureau's authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 shall not be eligible for a petition for termination of order pursuant to § 1091.110, and a respondent entering into a consent agreement waives any right to judicial review of such consent agreement.
(a) Notwithstanding sections § 1091.102 through § 1091.104, the Bureau may, in its sole discretion, provide the notice and opportunity to respond required by 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C) in a notice of charges otherwise brought by the Bureau pursuant to 12 CFR 1081.200 and the adjudication proceedings pursuant to that part.
(b) If the Bureau chooses to proceed in the manner described in paragraph (a) of this section, it shall so indicate in the notice of charges, and any order of the Director resulting from the notice of charges shall constitute the order referred to in 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C).
(c) If the Bureau proceeds pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the provisions of § 1091.100 through § 1091.113 will be inapplicable to such proceeding. If the Bureau proceeds pursuant to this part, then the provisions of 12 CFR part 1081 shall be inapplicable to such proceedings.
Nothing in this part shall be construed to limit the relief the Bureau may seek in any civil action or administrative adjudication, including but not limited to, seeking an order to have a person deemed subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514 for the reasons set forth in 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C) or otherwise.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations for filing Notices of Intention to obtain a Section 115 compulsory license with the Copyright Office to provide an option for electronically filing the notice. By law, such notices may be filed in the Office only when the public records of the Copyright Office do not identify the copyright owner of the musical work and include an address at which notice can be served. In addition, the Copyright Office is proposing to clarify in its regulations that it does not examine Notices of Intention filed with the Office for legal sufficiency and to include a Privacy Act Advisory Statement.
Comments are due no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time July 9, 2012.
The Copyright Office strongly prefers that comments be submitted electronically. A rulemaking page containing a comment form is posted on the Copyright Office Web site at
Tanya Sandros, Deputy General Counsel, or Stephen Ruwe, Attorney-Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–8366.
Section 115 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., provides that “[w]hen phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work have been distributed to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner, any other person * * * may, by complying with the provisions of this section, obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of the work.” 17 U.S.C. 115(a)(1).
Included among the conditions that must be met to use the Section 115 compulsory license is the requirement that a person who wishes to obtain a compulsory license “shall, before or within thirty days after making, and before distributing any phonorecords of the work, serve notice of intention to do so on the copyright owner. If the registration or other public records of the Copyright Office do not identify the copyright owner and include an address at which notice can be served, it shall be sufficient to file the notice of intention in the Copyright Office. The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.” 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1).
In 2004, the Copyright Office (“Office”) amended 37 CFR 201.18, the regulations governing Notices of Intention to obtain a Section 115 compulsory license (“Notices”), in order to make the license more functional. 69 FR 34578 (June 22, 2004). Among the 2004 amendments to 37 CFR 201.18 was a provision that allowed that a Notice “may designate any number of nondramatic musical works, provided that the copyright owner of each designated work or, in the case of any work having more than one copyright owner, any one of the copyright owners is the same and that the information required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does not vary [
Earlier in the 2004 rulemaking process the Office also considered whether to allow a licensee to file a Notice in the Office in an electronic format. The Office determined that it was not prepared to accept electronically filed Notices because it did not have in place the systems that would accommodate such filings but that the Office anticipated that such filings would be accepted in the future. The Office did provide that in the case where the licensee intends to license a high volume of nondramatic musical works under section 115 and would endure significant hardships if required to submit the Notices under the standard practices, the licensee may contact the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office to inquire whether special arrangements could be made for submission of the Notice electronically. 69 FR 11566, 11570 (March 11, 2004).
The Office is aware of a growing need for an electronic filing system for filing Section 115 Notices with the Copyright Office because of the large number of works being used under the compulsory license where service of the Notice cannot be made effectively on the copyright owner. To meet this need, the Office is now preparing to accept specific types of electronically filed Notices addressing multiple nondramatic musical works. Hence, the Office is proposing to amend its regulations in § 201.18 by providing for use of an online system for submission of Notices covering multiple nondramatic musical works.
The Office proposes to amend its regulations to allow prospective licensees to make electronic filings of Notices addressing multiple nondramatic musical works, provided that the information required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of § 201.18 does not vary. In addition, the Office is proposing to clarify its rules for submission of Notices in a paper format that contain multiple titles of nondramatic musical works.
The Office has reviewed the Notices recently filed with the Licensing Division in the traditional paper format and observed that parties have filed such Notices that address multiple works for which the public records of the Office do not identify the copyright owner. Although paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C) of § 201.18 requires that a Notice include the copyright owner of the work only “if known,” the Office has not questioned Notices filed in a paper format addressing multiple works where such “unknown” ownership is shared across each work addressed in the Notice,
The Office has also determined that Notices addressing multiple nondramatic musical works may be submitted electronically as XML files. Electronically submitted Notices will be maintained in a database that can be searched using any of the included fields of information. While the search capability of the electronically filed Notices will not be directly available to the public for technical reasons during the initial rollout of this service, a request may be made to the Licensing Division for a search of the database during the interim period. As such, the Office proposes to allow Notices to be filed in the Office in electronic format regardless of whether the copyright owner of each designated work is the same, provided that the Notice does not include a nondramatic musical work when the identity and address of at least one of its copyright owners may be found in the public record of the Copyright Office.
As part of the process of accepting electronically filed Notices, the Office is also proposing to adopt regulations governing payment for electronically filed Notices in order to provide a means to authenticate the licensee submitting the Notice (see below) and to facilitate an efficient implementation of the interim system. Specifically, the Office is proposing that during the introduction of the online filing process, parties that wish to use the Office's online system for electronically filing Notices be required to maintain a deposit account pursuant to § 201.6(b) of the Copyright Office regulations for payment of the Notice filing fees set forth in § 201.3(e)(1) of the Office's regulations, an option that can be easily implemented.
In addition, the Office proposes not to require an electronic signature during the initial rollout of the filing process, although the Office anticipates adding an electronic signature requirement in later versions of the system. Instead, a remitter will have to create an online account to file the Notice electronically and, as noted above, provide payment via a Copyright Office deposit account. The Office is adopting this approach because the online system will be able to use the deposit account information to reasonably verify and authenticate the identity of the person submitting and validating Notices. In addition, the Office will require that the person submitting the Notices provide contact information and attest to his or her authority to file Notices on behalf of the subject Licensee.
In order to accommodate a filer of a Notice identifying only one or a few titles who does not have a deposit account, the Office intends in the future to upgrade the online filing system to require an electronic signature and to accept additional payment options, e.g., credit card payments. At the moment, however, the focus is on offering a mechanism for filing Notices with large numbers of titles in a manner that can easily be administered by the Office at this time. The Office is also reviewing its fee for filing Notices as part of a larger project to review its fees for registration and services. Any changes to the fees for filing Notices of Intention to Obtain a Compulsory License will be addressed in that process.
The Office is also taking this opportunity to clarify the extent to which the Office examines the Notices. First, the Office does not examine Notices for legal sufficiency. Rather, the determination of whether a Notice filed in the Office is sufficient as a matter of law under this section shall, if necessary, be made by a court of competent jurisdiction. For that reason, a person or entity filing a Notice of Intention to obtain a Section 115 compulsory license should take care to comply with all the statutory and regulatory requirements pertaining to such Notices. However, the Office will notify a prospective licensee when a Notice was not accompanied by payment of the required fee. Such a Notice is considered an incomplete submission and the Notice shall be deemed filed only as of the date the Office has received both the Notice and the applicable fee.
In addition, the Office is proposing to amend its regulations for Notices to include a Privacy Act Advisory Statement in § 201.18 in addition to providing this information on its Web site. The Privacy Act Advisory Statement fulfills the Office's obligation to notify the public that Notices with personally identifying information filed with the Office become public records.
While the Office is proposing to amend its regulations to accept electronic filing of the Section 115 Notices of Intent to Obtain a Compulsory License, it needs to fully test the system before making it available to the public for actual, valid submissions of Notices. Thus, members of the public are invited to participate in a Beta test of the proposed electronic system. Parties wishing to participate in Beta testing should contact Tracie Coleman in the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office at 202–707–3600,
The Copyright Office hereby seeks comment from the public on the proposals identified herein concerning Notices of Intention to obtain a Section 115 compulsory license.
Copyright.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office proposes to amend part 201 of 37 CFR as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
2. Amend § 201.4(a)(1)(iii) by removing “Original, signed notices” at the beginning of the paragraph and adding “Notices” in its place.
3. Amend § 201.18 as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a)(4);
b. By adding a new paragraph (e)(5);
c. By redesignating paragraph (g) as new paragraph (h);
d. By adding a new paragraph (g);
e. By adding a new paragraph (i).
The additions and revisions to § 201.18 read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) A Notice of Intention shall be served or filed for nondramatic musical works embodied, or intended to be embodied, in phonorecords made under the compulsory license. For purposes of this section and subject to subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), a Notice filed with the Copyright Office which lists multiple works shall be considered a single Notice and fees shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in § 201.3(e)(1) if filed in the Copyright Office under paragraph (f)(3) of this section. Payment of the applicable fees for a Notice submitted electronically under this paragraph shall be made through a deposit account established under § 201.6(b).
(i) Except as provided for in paragraph (a)(7), a Notice of Intention served on a copyright owner or agent of a copyright owner may designate any number of nondramatic musical works provided that that the information required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does not vary and that the copyright owner of each designated work is the same, or in the case of any work having more than one copyright owner, that any one of the copyright owners is the same and is the copyright owner served.
(ii) A Notice of Intention filed in the Copyright Office in paper form may designate any number of nondramatic musical works provided that that the information required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does not vary, and that the copyright owner of each designated work (or, in the case of works having more than one copyright owner, any one of the copyright owners) is the same and the registration records or other public records of the Copyright Office do not identify the copyright owner(s) of such work(s) and include an address for any such owner(s) at which notice can be served. For purposes of this subparagraph, in the case of works having more than one copyright owner, a single Notice must identify an actual person or entity as the common copyright owner; the common copyright owner may not be identified as “unknown.” However, a single Notice may include multiple works for which no copyright owners can be identified for any of the listed works.
(iii) A Notice of Intention filed in the Copyright Office in electronic format may designate multiple nondramatic musical works, regardless of whether the copyright owner of each designated work (or, in the case of any work having more than one copyright owner, any one of the copyright owners) is the same, provided that the information required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does not vary, and that for any designated work, the records of the Copyright Office do not include an address at which notice can be served.
(e) * * *
(5) If the Notice is filed in the Office electronically, the person or entity intending to obtain the compulsory license or a duly authorized agent of such person or entity shall, rather than signing the Notice, attest that he or she has the appropriate authority of the licensee, including any related entities listed, if applicable, to submit the electronically filed Notice on behalf of the licensee.
(g)
(h)
(i)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing a limited approval of two revisions to the Florida state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010. Additionally, EPA is proposing a limited approval of a draft SIP revision submitted by FDEP on April 13, 2012, for parallel processing. Collectively, these three SIP revisions address regional haze for the first implementation period. Specifically, these SIP revisions address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants
Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0935, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562–9061 and by electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele Notarianni can be reached at telephone number (404) 562–9031 and by electronic mail at
EPA is proposing a limited approval of two Florida SIP revisions submitted by FDEP on March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010. Today, EPA is also proposing a limited approval of a draft SIP revision submitted by FDEP on April 13, 2012, for parallel processing. See section II of this proposed rulemaking for more detail on parallel processing. These three SIP revisions address regional haze requirements for Florida under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). EPA is proposing a limited approval of these SIP revisions because the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Florida SIP. Throughout this document, references to Florida's (or FDEP's or the State's) “regional haze SIP” refer to Florida's original March 19, 2010, regional haze SIP revision, as later supplemented in a SIP revision submitted August 31, 2010, and in a draft SIP revision dated April 13, 2012.
In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Florida regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements.
Parallel processing refers to a concurrent state and federal proposed rulemaking action. Generally under this process, the state submits a copy of the proposed SIP revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing.
As mentioned above, on April 13, 2012, Florida submitted a draft regional haze SIP revision along with a request for parallel processing. Florida provided the SIP revision for public comment on April 13, 2012, but the State has not yet finalized the SIP revision. Through today's proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing parallel limited approval for this draft SIP revision.
Once the April 13, 2012, revision is state-effective, Florida will need to provide EPA with a formal SIP revision request to incorporate the revision into the Florida SIP. After Florida submits the formal SIP revision request (including a response to any public comments raised during the State's public participation process), EPA will evaluate any changes to the SIP revision from what is proposed in today's action. If any such changes are found by EPA to be significant, the Agency intends to re-propose the action based upon the revised submission. If the changes render the SIP revision not approvable, EPA would re-propose the action as a disapproval of the revision. If there are no significant changes, EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice for the SIP revision.
The FDEP-requested parallel processing allows EPA to begin to take action on the State's draft SIP revision in advance of the submission of the formal SIP revision. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been: (1) Adopted by Florida, (2) evaluated for changes, and (3) submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (PM
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.”
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in section IV of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail below.
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.
The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure “reasonable progress” toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired (“best”) and 20 percent most impaired (“worst”) visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, “baseline visibility conditions” were the starting points for assessing “current” visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000—2004 baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the “best” and one for the “worst” days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for “reasonable progress” toward achieving natural (i.e., “background”) visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are required to consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, described as “BART-eligible sources” in the RHR, and document their BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP.
As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration for CAIR.
EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NO
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS must include “enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals” for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state.
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through “participation” in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
• Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
• Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
• Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and where possible, in electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to be met.
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs.
On March 19, 2010, FDEP submitted a revision to the Florida SIP to address regional haze requirements as required by EPA's RHR. On August 31, 2010, FDEP submitted an additional SIP revision to address regional haze requirements. Specifically, Florida's August 31, 2010, SIP revision adopted amendments to rescind its Reasonable Progress Control Technology Rule and to modify its technical justification to rely on CAIR and the Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule. Further, on April 13, 2012, FDEP submitted a draft SIP revision to evaluate BART and reasonable progress provisions for several of Florida's EGUs.
Florida has three Class I areas where visibility is an important value within its borders: Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and Saint (St.) Marks Wilderness Area. Florida is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses these Class I areas and for consulting with other states whose sources impact the areas.
The Florida regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility improvement at Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and St. Marks Wilderness Area, and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period. In developing the LTS for the areas, Florida considered both emissions sources inside and outside of Florida that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Florida's Class I areas. The State also identified and considered emissions sources within Florida that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to make these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the Class I areas in Florida and those areas affected by emissions from Florida.
As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, Florida calculated baseline/current and natural visibility conditions for its Class I areas, as summarized below.
Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations of fine particle components (or from components
Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area by VISTAS. Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review of the science
FDEP estimated baseline visibility conditions at Florida's Class I areas using available monitoring data from IMPROVE monitoring sites in Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and St. Marks Wilderness Area. IMPROVE data records for the Everglades had four years of complete data and no substitution of data was made. However, Chassahowitzka and St. Marks both required data substitution to make their records complete. This substitution was made in accordance with EPA guidance for tracking progress which can be found at
Baseline visibility on the 20 percent worst days is better at Everglades (22.3 deciviews) than Chassahowitzka (25.7 deciviews) or St. Marks (26.3 deciviews). On the other hand, natural background visibility is slightly worse for Everglades (12.1 deciviews) than either Chassahowitzka (11.0 deciviews) or St. Marks (11.7 deciviews). The natural and baseline conditions for Florida's Class I areas for both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.
In setting the RPGs, Florida considered the uniform rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (“glidepath”) and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to the glidepath.
Florida's SIP presents two sets of graphs for its Class I areas, one for the 20 percent best days and one for the 20 percent worst days. Florida constructed the graph for the worst days (
For the Everglades National Park, the overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between baseline visibility of 22.30 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 12.09 deciviews,
As described in section IV.E of this action, the LTS is a compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state for achieving its RPGs. Florida's LTS for the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Florida LTS was developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the emissions units within Florida and in surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls required or expected under federal and state regulations for the 2004–2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified emissions units to determine if additional reasonable controls were required.
In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Florida. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants NO
VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source classifications: Stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category could be significant. VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) mobile sources (
There are many federal and state control programs being implemented that VISTAS and Florida anticipate will reduce emissions between the end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from these control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement by 2018 in the Florida Class I areas. The control programs relied upon by Florida include CAIR; EPA's NO
Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.
Below in Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated emission inventories for Florida.
VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 southeastern states, including Florida. The modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
• Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic, meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional- scale photochemical, PM
• Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission sources for photochemical grid models.
• Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was also subjected to outside peer review.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the 10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid cells that covers the continental United
VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), Florida provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's RHR and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS and determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to agree with the VISTAS model performance procedures and results, and that CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the regional haze assessments for the Florida LTS and regional haze SIP.
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and geographic areas, VISTAS developed emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the major contributor to PM
VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either “coastal” or “inland” (sometimes referred to as “mountain”) sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types of Class I areas. Florida's Class I areas are “coastal” areas.
Results from VISTAS' emission sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate particles resulting from SO
The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, including Florida. The sensitivity analyses also show that reducing organic carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas.
Florida considered the factors listed in under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section IV.E of this action to develop its LTS as described below. Florida, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), fine soils (a product of construction activities and activities that generate fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively minor contributors to visibility impairment at the Class I areas
The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that reductions in SO
Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, Florida concluded that the greatest visibility benefits on the 20 percent worst days for the Florida Class I areas and Okefenokee in Georgia are projected to result from further reducing SO
SO
As discussed in section V.C.3 of this action, through comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI),
Florida used the VISTAS criteria as a starting point for developing its own methodology. For reasons of better public clarity and understanding, Florida chose to develop a reasonable progress source selection metric of emissions (Q) divided by distance (d) from the Class I area or “Q/d” (i.e., 2002 SO
Since visibility in Class I areas in or near Florida is expected to improve at very near the uniform rate of progress with current rules, Florida chose a minimum threshold for reasonable evaluation of sources of Q/d = 50. Sources of SO
The Florida criterion (Q/d
FDEP identified 32 emissions units at 14 facilities in Florida (see Table 4) with SO
In its April 13, 2012, amendment, as summarized in Table 5, FDEP documented that nine of the identified EGUs have shut down, two others will be shut down by December 31, 2013, and two others have taken Federally enforceable permit limits that reduce their contribution to regional haze below Florida's threshold for reasonable progress analysis. The remaining 19 units will be addressed in later actions.
Florida chose to rely on the Industrial Boiler MACT, which was promulgated on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608),
The State's demonstration is a streamlined control analysis showing that regulations requiring the most stringent level of controls have been adopted for unit 15, and thus, the State did not review the remaining statutory factors for reasonable progress.
Since the industrial boiler MACT standard only addresses SO
From Florida's reasonable progress assessment, it appears that the 2002 emissions for this unit were 3,242 tons of SO
Thirty-one of the 32 emissions units identified for a reasonable progress control analysis are EGUs. Two of these units, Florida Crushed Stone (Central Power and Lime) unit 18 and JEA Northside unit 27, have taken federally enforceable permit conditions that limit SO
JEA Northside unit 27 is a circulating fluidized bed boiler. In 2009, this facility received a federally enforceable permit condition that limits emissions to 0.2 pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) on a 24-hour average and 0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average resulting a maximum annual emission rate of 1,816 tons. These limits reduce the Q/d to 26.4 and 26.2, respectively, for the two emissions limits identified above. Hence, Florida determined that the unit does not require a reasonable progress control analysis.
Eleven EGUs are either shut down or will be shut down by December 31, 2013. The remaining 18 EGUs, located at ten facilities, are: City of Deerhaven unit 5; FP&L Manatee units 1, 2; FP&L Turkey Point units 1, 2; Gulf Power Crist unit 7; JEA Northside/SJRPP unit 3; Lakeland Electric CD McIntosh unit 6; Progress Energy Anclote units 1, 2; Progress Energy Crystal River units 1, 2, 3, 4; St. Johns River units 16, 17; and Seminole Electric Cooperative units 1, 2.
Florida evaluated the SO
Many of the emission units subject to reasonable progress analysis, as defined above, either have already reduced SO
Florida is in the process of reevaluating the reasonable progress determinations for these remaining facilities' 18 EGUs and plans to address most of them in a subsequent SIP amendment. For this reason, EPA is taking no action on the determinations for these 18 EGUs at this time. EPA will address these emissions units in separate actions.
BART is an element of Florida's LTS for the first implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) an identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART, and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These components, as addressed by FDEP, are discussed as follows.
The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all of the BART-eligible sources within the state's boundaries. FDEP identified the BART-eligible sources in Florida by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions units were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units have the potential to emit 250 tons or more per year of any visibility-impairing pollutant.
The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO
The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, Florida required each of its BART-eligible sources to develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF
The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Florida, developed a “Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.” Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in the development and review of the VISTAS protocol.
VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could consider both the old and new IMPROVE equations. FDEP sent a letter and an email to EPA on January 3, 2008, and January 11, 2008, respectively, justifying the need for this post-processing approach, and the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator sent Florida a letter of approval dated January 17, 2008. Florida's justification included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a rationale on the benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation. The State's letter requesting approval is located in Appendix L on page 206 of the March 19, 2010, Florida regional haze SIP submittal and can be accessed at
For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area.
Florida used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for determining which sources are subject to BART and concluded that the threshold of 0.5 deciview was appropriate in this situation. While Florida has 46 sources with BART-eligible units, they are scattered about the State and, in FDEP's judgment, are not clustered in sufficient quantity to warrant a change to the threshold value of 0.5 deciview. FDEP concluded, and EPA proposes to agree, that a 0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate in this instance and a lower threshold is not warranted.
Florida initially identified 46 sources with BART-eligible units. Six BART-eligible sources made changes to their operation in order to exempt from further BART review. These sources are: Georgia Pacific-Palatka; Rock Tenn (Smurfit-Stone)—Fernandina Beach; Rock Tenn (Smurfit-Stone)—Panama City; Mosaic New Wales; Mosaic Riverview; and CF Industries. All of these changes have been incorporated into their air permits and are federally enforceable. Table 6 identifies the remaining 40 BART-eligible sources identified in FDEP's March 19, 2010, submittal, and of these, lists the five sources identified as subject to BART.
Two of the 17 non-EGU facilities (CEMEX and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals-SR/SC Complex) were found to be subject to BART and were required to prepare a full BART determination analysis. Eleven non-EGU sources demonstrated that they are exempt from being subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. This modeling involved assessing the visibility impact of emissions of NO
The 23 sources with BART-eligible EGUs relied on Florida's decision to use CAIR emissions limits for SO
On August 8, 2011, EPA published the Transport Rule which replaced CAIR. As under CAIR, EPA determined in the Transport Rule that Florida is contributing to ozone air quality problems in other states. However, unlike CAIR, EPA determined in CSAPR that Florida is contributing to SO
Accordingly, FDEP has initiated an effort to reassess BART for all of these facilities with BART-eligible EGUs. In its April 13, 2012, proposed SIP amendment, the State evaluated 12 of the 23 affected facilities. Table 7 summarizes the reevaluated facilities with BART-eligible EGUs.
Of the 23 EGU BART-eligible facilities, FDEP identified 11 unit s at eight facilities that have shut down or will be shut down by December 31, 2013,
For the 17 non-EGU BART-eligible facilities in Table 8, the two sources found subject to BART and requiring a full BART determination analysis are CEMEX and White Springs Agricultural Chemical—SR/SC Complex. These BART-subject sources were required to complete BART determination modeling, which included an analysis of the five CAA BART factors, to determine appropriate BART controls.
Five BART-eligible sources (i.e., CEMEX, White Springs Agricultural Chemical—SR/SC Complex, City of Tallahassee—Purdom Generating Station, Tampa Electric Company—Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3), and Florida Power and Light (FPL)—Port Everglades (Units 3, 4)) modeled visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART exemption. These five facilities are therefore considered to be subject to BART. Consequently, they each submitted permit applications to the State that included their proposed BART determinations.
In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed existing controls on these BART-subject sources to assess whether these constituted the best controls currently available, then identified what other technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are summarized below.
CEMEX operates an existing Portland cement plant with two Portland cement lines (Lines 1 and 2). These include: two Polysius GEPOL preheater kilns (Kilns 1 and 2); two clinker coolers and associated raw mills; finish mills; cement and clinker handling equipment; coal handling equipment; silos; and air pollution control devices. The nominal capacity of each kiln is 780,000 tpy of clinker. The kiln was subjected to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review and Best Available Control Technology determination (BACT) review since 1977 one or more times, and FDEP determined the permitted values compare favorably to recent determinations made throughout the country even for new units. Overall, the controls consist of effective SO
FDEP determined it was not necessary to submit a full five-factor analysis and determined that the controls in place constituted BART.
White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., also known as PCS Phosphate, operates a phosphate complex that processes phosphate rock to produce several products at the Suwannee River/Swift Creek Complex (two plants). The facility consists of one rock grinder, two phosphoric acid plants, two defluorinated phosphate (DFP) plants, one dical process, two diammonium phosphate (DAP) plants, one monoammonium (MAP)/DAP storage building, one MAP/DAP screen/shipping building, four sulfuric acid plants (SAP), two phosphoric acid filters, four superphosphoric acid plants, one green superphosphoric acid plant, the Swift Creek Mine rock dryer, and one acid clarification plant. The facility also has storage silos associated with the Swift Creek Mine and the DFP plant.
Sulfuric acid is produced on-site by burning elemental sulfur, converting the resulting SO
SAP C and D plants use the double absorption process to control SO
All of the DAP/MAP plants include medium to high efficiency wet scrubbers that use phosphoric acid and then pond water to reduce PM from the reactor and granulators. They are also equipped with abatement scrubbers using fresh water for final cleanup. Emissions from the dryers, coolers, mills and screens are controlled by cyclones, wet scrubbers with phosphoric acid or pond water as the scrubbing medium, and by abatement scrubbers using fresh water.
A and B DFP Coolers and Swift Creek Mine Silos use wet cyclonic scrubbers with pond water as the scrubbing medium to control particulate matter emissions.
A and B DFP Plants include cross-flow packed wet scrubber with pond water as the scrubbing medium to control PM emissions.
The X Train Dical Process rotary dryer includes a series of wet venturi and cyclonic scrubbers to control PM emissions.
The #2 Phosphate Rock Grinder, X Train limestone handling, the DFP Feed Prep area, and the DFP Product Silos include fabric filter baghouses designed to recover process or product raw materials and to control PM emissions.
The Swift Creek Mine Rock Dryer and Swift Creek Mine Silos include wet cyclonic scrubber to control PM emissions. The Rock Dryer is fired primarily with natural gas.
FDEP reviewed the facility following the BART Guidelines. For most BART-subject units at the facility, the State performed a full BART determination analysis. However, for some BART-subject units, the State found that the existing controls were the best available and no further review was performed in accordance with the BART Guidelines.
White Springs submitted its BART permit application with proposed BART determination on the basis of the original design, and compared it to subsequent recent PSD/BACT reviews of similar emissions units at other facilities. FDEP finds that the levels of controls already in place are consistent with those found to be BACT in recent determinations and represent BART for this facility. Emissions limits consistent with this finding were incorporated into the final BART permit with some minor technical adjustments.
The City of Tallahassee operates the Sam O. Purdom Generating Station. Unit 7 at this facility is a BART-eligible EGU that is fired primarily with fuel oil and natural gas. The unit began operation in 1966 and is a 621 MMBtu per hour steam generator paired with a nominal 44 MW steam-electrical generator. FDEP issued a final air construction Permit No. 120001–008–AC on September 11, 2007, requiring that Unit 7 permanently cease operation no later than December 31, 2013, to satisfy BART.
Tampa Electric Company's Big Bend Station Units 1, 2, and 3 are BART-
On January 24, 2012, Florida Power and Light submitted an application to construct one nominal 1,250 MW combined cycle unit and ancillary equipment at the FPL Port Everglades Plant. The four existing fossil fuel-fired steam generators with a total nominal capacity of 1,200 MW will be shut down and dismantled as part of this project. The BART-eligible units 3 and 4 are scheduled to be demolished in the first quarter of 2013 but not later than December 31, 2013. FDEP included a copy of the permit for informational purposes in Exhibit 2.
EPA proposes to agree with Florida's analyses and conclusions for the five BART-subject sources described above. EPA has reviewed the State's analyses and believes that they were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's
The BART determinations for each of the five facilities discussed above and the resulting emissions limits and conditions were adopted by Florida and have been incorporated into the facilities' title V operating permits. Copies of these permits were included for informational purposes in an attachment to the Florida Regional Haze SIP submittal of March 19, 2010, and in the April 13, 2012, amendment as Exhibit 2.
The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state regulations for the period 2004–2018 and additional control measures that the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at Florida's Class I areas had not yet made final control determinations for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not included in the modeling submitted by Florida. Any controls resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, giving further assurance that Florida will achieve its RPGs. This modeling demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for two of the three Florida Class I areas for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensures no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
As shown in Table 9 below, visibility improvements on the 20 percent worst days in Florida's Class I areas are expected to be slightly better than the uniform rate of progress by 2018 for Everglades and Chassahowitzka and slightly less than the uniform rate of progress for St. Marks based on emissions reductions from existing and planned emissions controls. Based on the projected rate of progress, St. Marks would achieve natural conditions by 2067. Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent best days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day conditions at all three sites. The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The regional haze provisions specify that a state may not adopt an RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from other CAA requirements during the implementation period.
The RPGs for the Class I areas in Florida are based on modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using the best available information at the time the analysis was done. These projections can be expected to change as additional information regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change their emission characteristics as they install control equipment to comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-intensive to require a state to continually revise its RPGs every time
EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions, and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard which must be achieved by a particular date.
EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as explained in sections IV.F and IV.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An
In the Florida regional haze SIP submittal, FDEP updated its visibility monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also in this submittal, FDEP affirmed its commitment to complete items required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, FDEP made a commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter.
The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Florida is the IMPROVE network. As discussed in section V.B.2 of this action, there are currently three IMPROVE sites in Florida, which serve as the monitoring sites for the three Class I areas in Florida. IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the regional haze program and is relied upon in the Florida regional haze submittal. In the submittal, Florida states its intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze implementation periods.
Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. Florida is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.
In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, FDEP and the local air agencies in the State operate a PM
In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
FDEP has evaluated the impact of sources on Class I areas in neighboring states. FDEP sent letters to Alabama and Georgia documenting its analysis using the State's AOI methodology and its approach to address the visibility impairment at the Class I areas in those states. The neighboring states were
EPA proposes to find that Florida has adequately addressed the consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.
Through the VISTAS RPO, Florida and the nine other member states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. FDEP provided a draft plan dated August 27, 2009, to the FLMs (and EPA) for review. Exhibit 3 of the Florida regional haze SIP submittal includes the October 26, 2009, comment letter from the U.S. National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which indicates that the FLMs appear to be generally supportive of the State's regional haze SIP, and were pleased with the technical information summarized in the regional haze SIP narrative. The bulk of the comments requested clarifications to the SIP or raised specific issues on the BART determinations that Florida addressed. FDEP responded to all the comments and made the requested clarifications as specified in its final SIP submittal. To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), FDEP made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout implementation of its plan, including annual discussions. FDEP also affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is required for those sources subject to the State's NSR regulations.
As summarized in sectionV.D of this action, consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), FDEP affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following this initial submittal of the Florida regional haze SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the mandatory Class I areas located within Florida and in each mandatory Class I area located outside Florida that may be affected by emissions from within Florida. Florida also offered recommendations for several technical improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS. These recommendations are discussed in detail in the Florida SIP submittal in Appendix K.
If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Florida's SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if Florida agrees after appropriate consultation, today's action may be revisited or additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-year progress report SIP revision.
EPA is proposing a limited approval of three revisions to the Florida SIP submitted by the State of Florida on March 19, 2010, August 31, 2010, and April 13, 2012, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300–308, as described previously in this action.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must approve all “collections of information” by EPA. The Act defines “collection of information” as a requirement for answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this action.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve the fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0336, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Richard Wong, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–8726. Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic mail at
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual PM
Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to EPA a SIP under title I, part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This SIP must include, among other elements, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date required by the CAA. Under CAA section 172(b), a state has up to three years after an area's designation as nonattainment to submit its SIP to EPA. For the 1997 PM
On December 3, 2008, Kentucky submitted an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, a 2002 base year emissions inventory and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM
On September 30, 2011, Kentucky withdrew the nonattainment submissions (everything with the exception of the 2002 base year emissions inventory) for its portion of the bi-state Louisville Area as allowed by 40 CFR 51.1004(c). EPA notes that the determination of attainment did not suspend the emissions inventory requirement found in CAA section 172(c)(3), and as such, Kentucky did not withdraw this portion of its December 3, 2008, SIP revision. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. EPA is now proposing to approve the emissions inventory portion of the SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on December 3, 2008, as required by section 172(c)(3).
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area. Kentucky selected 2002 as base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). Emissions contained in Kentucky's December 3, 2008, SIP revision cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. A detailed discussion of the emissions inventory development can be found in Appendix H of the Kentucky submittal; a summary is provided below.
The table below provides a summary of the annual 2002 emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
The 172(c)(3) emissions inventory is developed by the incorporation of data from multiple sources. States were required to develop and submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule for all source categories (i.e., point, area, nonroad mobile and on-road mobile). This inventory often forms the basis of data that are updated with more recent information and data that also is used in their attainment demonstration modeling inventory. Such was the case in the development of the 2002 emissions inventory that was submitted in the Commonwealth's attainment SIP for its portion of the bi-state Louisville Area. The 2002 emissions inventory was based on data developed with the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) contractors and submitted by the states to the 2002 National Emissions Inventory. Several iterations of the 2002 inventories were developed for the different emissions source categories resulting from revisions and updates to the data. This resulted in the use of version G2 of the updated data to represent the point sources' emissions. Data from many databases, studies and models (e.g., Vehicle Miles Traveled, fuel programs, the NONROAD 2002 model data for commercial marine vessels, locomotives and Clean Air Market Division, etc.) resulted in the inventory submitted in this SIP. The data were developed according to current EPA emissions inventory guidance “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations” (August 2005) and a quality assurance project plan that was developed through VISTAS and approved by EPA. EPA preliminarily agrees that the process used to develop this inventory was adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and the implementing regulations.
EPA has reviewed Kentucky's emissions inventory and has preliminarily determined that it is adequate for the purposes of meeting section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement. Further, EPA has made the preliminary determination that the emissions were developed consistent with the CAA, implementing regulations and EPA guidance for emission inventories.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on December 3, 2008. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On June 1, 2011, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted several volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for approval into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules, which include the source categories covered by the Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents issued in 2008, as well as several other miscellaneous rule revisions, will help Ohio's effort to attain the 2008 ozone standard. These rules are approvable because they are consistent with the CTG documents issued by EPA in 2008, and satisfy the reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act).
Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0595, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning & Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA is proposing to approve into the Ohio SIP several new VOC and amended VOC rules under Chapter 3745–21 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). These include new fiberglass boat manufacturing, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings rules, which are consistent with the CTGs issued in 2008, as well as revisions to definitions and rules for the control of VOC emissions from stationary sources, storage of volatile organic liquids, industrial cleaning solvents, and flatwood paneling coatings. These VOC rules will help Ohio's effort to attain the 2008 ozone standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve into the Ohio SIP amendments to OAC 3745–72, which contain its Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements, so that it is consistent with EPA requirements regarding special provisions for alcohol blends.
As discussed previously, EPA issued new CTGs in 2008. EPA has reviewed Ohio's new VOC rules for the source categories covered by these CTGs, and proposes to find that those rules covered by the 2008 CTGs are consistent with the control measures, definitions, recordkeeping, and test methods in these CTGs and applicable EPA RACT guidance at
Revisions to this section primarily consist of new definitions that are needed to support the new and revised rules. These definitions are consistent with EPA RACT guidance and are approvable.
The main revisions in this section are the expiration of the control requirements in 3745–21–09 (C), (U), and (HH) for the “Surface coating of automobile and light-duty trucks,” “Surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products,” and “Surface coating of automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts,” when those sources, in the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties) become subject to and comply with the new rules (discussed below) based on the new CTGs. These revisions are approvable because the control requirements in the new CTGs are more appropriate and include more stringent emission limits than the rules being replaced.
Additional requirements for flares have been added to 3745–21–09(JJ), (LL), (UU), (ZZ), and (BBB) for “The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,” “The Lubrizol Corporation,” “British Petroleum Company, Toledo Refinery,” “Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company,” and “BF Goodrich Company Akron Chemical Plant.” An unenforceable numerical emission limit for BF Goodrich's agerite resin D process has been replaced with the appropriate flare control requirements in (DD)(10)(d), as well as the control equipment/flare monitoring requirements in (10)(e), and the requirement in (10)(f) that the control equipment/flare be operated at all times when emissions are vented to it. For the other companies listed above, the flare control requirements in (10)(d) have been enhanced by the addition of the requirements in (10)(e) and (10)(f). The addition of these flare requirements improves the enforceability of the control requirements in 3745–21–09(JJ), (LL), (UU), (ZZ), and (BBB) and they are therefore approvable.
A minor revision was made to (D)(3)(c), which previously referred to the requirements “listed in paragraphs (D)(3)(c)(i) and (D)(3)(c)(ii).” This revision consisted of referring to the “following” requirements instead of the superfluous reference “listed in paragraphs (D)(3)(c)(i) and (D)(3)(c)(ii).” There was no substantive change as a result of this rule revision.
Ohio revised its applicability cutoff in (A)(1)(c) to 3.0 tons VOC emissions per twelve-month rolling period. This cutoff is consistent with the applicability cutoff in several CTGs and is therefore approvable.
Ohio has added alternatives, for manufacturers of coatings, inks or adhesives, to the VOC-content limitations in (C)(1) and the cleaning requirements in (C)(2). These requirements, in (C)(6)(b) are based on the (California) Bay Area Air Quality Management District's rules, which are referenced in EPA's CTG. These requirements apply to cleaning mixing vats, high dispersion mills, grinding mills, tote tanks, and roller mills and consist of four options: (1) The solvent or solvent solution used must either contain less than 1.67 pounds VOC per gallon or have a VOC composite partial vapor pressure of less than or equal to 8 millimeters (mm) of mercury (Hg); (2) several work practices must be implemented, including storing all VOC-containing cleaning materials in closed containers; (3) the emissions from equipment cleaning must be collected and vented to an emission control system with an overall control efficiency of 80 percent or more on a mass basis; or (4) no more than 60 gallons of fresh solvent per month may be used (records of which are required to be kept in (G)((7)), and all VOC-containing cleaning materials must be stored in closed containers. In addition, the owner or operator of a facility engaged in wipe cleaning may not use open containers for the storage of organic compounds to be used for cleaning, or for the storage or disposal of any material impregnated with organic compounds used for cleaning.
Paragraph (J) includes sufficiently detailed monthly recordkeeping requirements for any facility that determines that it is exempt from the requirements of this rule because emissions are less than 3.0 tons per twelve-month rolling period. These cleaning solvent requirements are therefore approvable because they are consistent with EPA guidance and require adequate recordkeeping.
Ohio added a paragraph (H) to provide the proper test methods for use when a facility chooses to comply by use of an add-on control device. These test methods are consistent with, and include, EPA test methods and compliance testing requirements.
Paragraph (K) includes sufficiently detailed daily recordkeeping requirements for any facility that determines it is exempt from the requirements of this rule because emissions are less than 15.0 pounds of VOC per day.
The additions to Ohio's flat wood paneling coating rule are therefore approvable.
This new regulation is based on and is consistent with EPA's 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. The control requirements for fiberglass boat manufacturing operations in the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area apply if the combined emissions of VOC from all such operations equal or exceed 2.7 tons per rolling twelve-month period. This rule covers open molding and gel coat operations, resin and gel coat mixing operations, and resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations. Emission limits are consistent with the CTG, as are VOC content and vapor pressure limits applicable to cleaning activities associated with fiberglass boat manufacturing.
Subject facilities can comply by using specified monomer VOC content limits (e.g. production resin applied via atomized spray would need to comply with a weighted average monomer VOC content limit of 28 percent by weight) and a non-monomer VOC content limit of 5 percent. An emission averaging option is also available.
The VOC containing cleaning solutions for routine cleaning of application equipment must either be no more than 5 percent VOC, by weight, or the composite vapor pressure must be no more than 0.50 mmHg. Also, mixing containers that are 55 gallons or greater must be covered. Recordkeeping requirements are also specified to establish applicability and compliance with the applicable limits.
This rule is therefore consistent with RACT and is approvable.
This new regulation is based on and is consistent with EPA's 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive Application Operations. The control requirements for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations in the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 8-hour ozone nonattainment area apply if the combined emissions of VOC from all such operations equal or exceed 3.0 tons per twelve-month rolling period. Subject adhesive application operations must either meet the specific VOC content limitations, depending upon the application or the substrate being bonded (
This rule is therefore consistent with RACT and is approvable.
This new regulation is based on and is consistent with EPA's 2008 CTG for Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. The control requirements for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating operations in the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 8-hour ozone nonattainment area apply if the combined emissions of VOC from all such operations equal or exceed 3.0 tons per twelve-month rolling period. Specified emission limits, e.g. 12.0 pounds VOC/gallon coating solids deposited for topcoat operations, are consistent with the CTG. As specified in the CTG, compliance with these limits is based on EPA's “Protocol for Determining the Daily VOC Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations.” This testing protocol considers the VOC content limit, the transfer efficiency and the efficiency of add-on control to establish compliance with the applicable emission limit.
Work practices for coating-related activities and cleaning materials, such as storing all VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials in closed containers are also required. Appropriate compliance procedures and test methods, as well as sufficient recordkeeping requirements to establish compliance and applicability are also included in this regulation.
This rule is therefore consistent with RACT and is approvable.
Ohio's amendments to OAC 3745–72, which contain its low Reid vapor pressure fuel requirements, are approvable because they are consistent with EPA requirements regarding special provisions for alcohol blends.
EPA is proposing to approve into the Ohio SIP the new rules for fiberglass boat manufacturing (3745–21–27), miscellaneous industrial adhesives (3745–21–28), and automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings (3745–21–29), as well as amended rules for definitions (3745–21–01), the control of VOC emissions from stationary sources (3745–21–09), storage of volatile organic liquids (3745–21–21), industrial cleaning solvents (3745–21–23), flat wood paneling coatings (3745–21–24), and low Reid vapor pressure fuel requirements (3745–72).
Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR Part 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment area (NA) in Arizona is currently attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM
Written comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0234, using one of the following methods: Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, at
Jerry Wamsley, Air Planning Office, AIR–2, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, telephone number: (415) 947–4111, or email address,
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.
EPA sets the NAAQS for certain ambient air pollutants at levels required to protect public health and welfare. Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers, or PM
Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM
Areas meeting the requirements of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) were designated nonattainment for PM
As a former “group I” area, the Paul Spur/Douglas NA
Generally, EPA determines whether an area's air quality is meeting the PM
Attainment of the 24-hour PM
To demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has operated PM
The Paul Spur monitor is located near the intersection of Paul Spur Road and State Route 80. This monitor was sited
Prior to 1998, the Douglas monitor was located at 15th Street Park, approximately one mile north of the border with Mexico. In 1998, ADEQ re-located the Douglas monitor to its current location, the Red Cross building just across from the park on 15th Street. The Douglas monitor was sited to provide PM
ADEQ is responsible for monitoring ambient air quality outside the metropolitan areas in Arizona. Annually, ADEQ submits monitoring network plan reports to EPA. These reports discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58. EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With respect to PM
As noted above, we determined that the Paul Spur/Douglas NA attained the PM
For the purposes of this proposed action, we have reviewed the data for the most recent three-year period (2009–2011). Table 1 summarizes the PM
During the 2009–2011 time period, the data collected by ADEQ meets the completeness criterion for all quarters at the Paul Spur monitor and for ten of twelve quarters at the Douglas monitor. The two incomplete quarters at the Douglas monitor were the first quarter of 2010 and the fourth quarter of 2011. During the first quarter of 2010, the Douglas monitor was three samples short of the 75 percent criterion, for a 60 percent (9 of 15 samples) reporting rate, and during the fourth quarter of 2011, the Douglas monitor was one sample short of the 75 percent criterion, for a 73 percent (11 of 15 samples) reporting rate.
To be considered “complete,” valid measurements must be made for 75 percent of all the scheduled sampling dates in each quarter of the year, and generally, three years of representative monitoring data that meet the 75 percent criterion should be utilized, where available. As noted above, however, EPA may find that data not
After reviewing the Paul Spur/Douglas NA data for the 2009–2011 period, for the three reasons discussed below, we find that the available data are sufficient to determine whether the Paul Spur/Douglas NA attained the PM
Therefore, based on our review of the certified, quality-assured data for 2009–2011, we find that the expected number of exceedances per year for the Paul Spur/Douglas NA for the most recent three-year period (i.e., 2009 to 2011) was 0.0 days per year. With an annual expected exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM
The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for reasonably available control measures or “RACM”, reasonable further progress or “RFP”, emissions inventories, a permit program for construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in the nonattainment area or “NSR”, contingency measures, conformity, and additional SIP revisions providing for attainment where EPA determines that the area has failed to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date.
Subpart 4 requirements in CAA section 189 apply specifically to PM
For nonattainment areas where EPA determines that monitored data show that the NAAQS have already been achieved, EPA's interpretation, upheld by the Courts, is that the obligation to submit certain requirements of part D, subparts 1, 2 and 4 of the Act are suspended for so long as the area continues to attain. These include requirements for attainment demonstrations, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures, because these provisions have the purpose of helping achieve attainment of the NAAQS. Certain other obligations for PM
This interpretation of the CAA is known as the Clean Data Policy. It is the subject of several EPA memoranda and regulations, and numerous rulemakings that have been published in the
In its many applications of the Clean Data Policy interpretation to PM
In our proposed and final rulemakings determining that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM
As the EPA rationally explained, if an area is in compliance with PM
EPA noted in its prior PM
It has been EPA's longstanding interpretation that the general provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP for areas already attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the General Preamble, we stated:
[R]equirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.
With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of part D of title I, RFP “means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific RFP requirements for PM
Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress, as defined in section 7501(1) of this title, toward attainment by the applicable date.
Although this section states that revisions shall contain milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further progress “toward attainment by the applicable attainment date,” as defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section 189(c)(3), which mandates that a State that fails to achieve a milestone must submit a plan that assures that the State will achieve the next milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
In the General Preamble, we noted with respect to section 189(c) that the purpose of the milestone requirement “is `to provide for emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date' (H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).” 57 FR 13539; (April 16, 1992). If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.
In the General Preamble, we stated, in the context of a discussion of the requirements applicable to the evaluation of requests to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that the “requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.” 57 FR 13564; (April 16, 1992). See also our September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:
Not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone applicable to the area occurs, each State in which all or part of such area is located shall submit to the Administrator a demonstration * * * that the milestone has been met.
Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission showing that such milestones have been met. As noted above, this is consistent with the position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the General Preamble and also in the Seitz memorandum with respect to the requirements of section 182(b) and (c). In the Seitz memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g), the milestone requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to provisions in section 189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an area has attained. The Seitz memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, stated:
Inasmuch as each of these requirements is linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not submit the related SIP submission either.
With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for “a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date * * *.” As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, the Page memorandum, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the Seitz memorandum. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.” 57 FR at 13564; (April 16, 1992).
Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer applying when an area has attained the standard because those “contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.” See 57 FR 13564; (April 16, 1992), and Seitz memorandum, pages 5–6.
Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require “provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures” (i.e., RACM) are implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements are a “component” of an area's attainment demonstration; see 57 FR 13560; (April 16, 1992). Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to reasonable further progress or to attainment. See the General Preamble at 57 FR 13498; (April 16, 1992). Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required.
We emphasize that the suspension of the obligation to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, and other related requirements exists only for as long as the Paul Spur/Douglas NA continues to monitor attainment of the PM
Based on our proposed determination that the Paul Spur/Douglas NA is currently attaining the PM
Lastly, suspension of Arizona's obligation to make submissions of certain attainment-related requirements for as long as the Paul Spur/Douglas NA continues to attain the standard would also serve to suspend any EPA obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the same attainment-related requirements because the deficiency that had led to the FIP obligation would no longer exist, i.e., for so long as the related State obligation continues to be suspended. In this instance, in 1991, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a moderate area PM
Based on the most recent three-year period of certified, quality-assured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix K and for the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that the Paul Spur/Douglas NA is currently attaining the 24-hour PM
In conjunction with and based upon our proposed determination that the Paul Spur/Douglas PM
Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the Paul Spur/Douglas NA as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 would remain moderate nonattainment for the Paul Spur/Douglas NA until such time as EPA determines that Arizona has met the CAA requirements for redesignating the Paul Spur/Douglas NA to attainment.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.
With this action, we propose to make a determination regarding attainment of the PM
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian Tribes and thus will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document responds to administrative appeals and solicits public comment on proposals generated as a result of certain amendments adopted in an international harmonization final rule published in the
Comments must be received by July 24, 2012.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Michael Stevens, telephone (202) 366–8553, or Shane Kelley, telephone (202) 366–0656, Standards and Rulemaking Division, telephone (202) 366–0656, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC. 20590–0001.
On January 19, 2011, PHMSA published a final rule under Docket PHMSA–2009–0126 (HM–215K; 76 FR 3308) that revised the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171–180) to align with various international standards. The final rule adopted amendments to the HMR regarding hazard communication, hazard classification including packing group assignment, packaging authorization, air transport quantity limitations, and various other international harmonization-related topics. The amendments were necessary to align the HMR with the latest revisions to the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions), the International Maritime Organization's Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), Transport Canada's Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG Regulations), and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations (UN Model Regulations) to facilitate to the seamless transportation of hazardous materials internationally, to, from, and within the United States. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), PHMSA is proposing a number of amendments in response to administrative appeals filed in accordance with 49 CFR 106.110–130 regarding revisions to the HMR adopted in the January 19, 2011 final rule. This document also addresses recent actions taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) regarding certain lithium ion battery-powered mobility aids (e.g., wheelchairs, travel scooters) offered by passengers for air transport. Additionally, PHMSA is proposing amendments to the HMR as a result of two administrative appeals submitted by an appellant in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010 (HM–231; 75 FR 5376), that revised shipper responsibilities related to packaging design variation and manufacturer notification recordkeeping requirements for certain packaging types.
This notice addresses administrative appeals submitted in response to the January 19, 2011 final rule from the following companies and organizations:
The administrative appeals are discussed in detail as follows:
A number of administrative appeals concern issues related to our adoption of the international system for transportation of limited quantity
PHMSA revised the HMR to phase out its system of reclassing and transporting limited quantity material as ORM–D. Under this system, a limited quantity of hazardous material that also meets the definition of a “consumer commodity” may be reclassed as ORM–D and is eligible for additional exceptions from regulation. See § 171.8 for the definition of “consumer commodity.” The January 19 final rule amended the HMR by phasing out the ORM–D system beginning January 1, 2013, for material transported by aircraft and, January 1, 2014, for material transported by all other modes of transportation (e.g., motor vehicle). ACA and HDMA appealed our decision to phase out the ORM–D system arguing that we did so “without any debate or consideration of [1] the type of materials that use this exception; [2] the costs incurred by the regulated community; and [3] the safety benefits.” ACA claimed that many companies and organizations, including themselves, asked for a separate rulemaking to address these issues. ACA is also concerned that although we provided a summary of comments against the phase-out in the preamble to the final rule, PHMSA did not discuss arguments raised in the comments. They stated we arbitrarily concluded that because there would be no immediate phase-out of the current ORM–D system, there would not be a sizeable impact to companies on the basis they would have sufficient time to adjust to the eventual phase-out. ACA asked us to reconsider the decision to not move forward in a separate rulemaking and to fully consider the effects of phasing out the ORM–D system. Additionally, HDMA requested that PHMSA allow for up to a 10-year phase-out based on the longevity of its packaging systems (i.e., totes) currently in use. According to HDMA, such totes are permanently marked with the “Consumer commodity, ORM–D” marking on them.
The HMR have long-recognized the relatively low risk posed by the transportation of certain hazardous materials such as limited quantities or consumer commodities. Considerable efforts have been made internationally to harmonize multi-modal standards with regard to the transport of limited quantities, including consumer commodities. We held public meetings on this issue in February 2006 and March 2008 to discuss potential impacts on domestic stakeholders. Additionally, this issue was discussed during our pre-UN public meetings held in 2006 and 2007. There was considerable domestic interest in pursuing further harmonization internationally due to the potential for substantial savings in transportation costs and improved transportation efficiency. In the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (October 21, 2009; 74 FR 53982) and NPRM we invited comments on this issue with regard to aligning the HMR with the UN Model Regulations for the domestic and international transport of limited quantities and consumer commodities. Of particular concern were any negative impacts on the domestic transportation of consumer commodities reclassed as ORM–D materials. While some changes adopted in the UN Model Regulations were similar to those currently in the HMR regarding limited quantities and consumer commodities (e.g., inner packaging limits and non-specification outer packagings allowed), some changes were not (e.g., marking, labeling, package gross mass). We stated that depending on the comments received and our own evaluation, we may determine that the significance of any amendments on the issue may warrant a separate rulemaking action. In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we concluded a separate rulemaking was not in the best interest of the hazardous material transportation community particularly when it involves international transportation. Further, creating a single global system for packaging, hazard communication, and transportation of limited quantity material would facilitate the domestic and international flow of hazardous material trade and any further delay in the phase-out would not be useful. Little or no quantification of any negative impact, including costs to domestic shippers and carriers alike, was provided in response to the ANPRM or NPRM. However, the Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA) did provide some cost data related to its unique practice of reusing totes permanently embossed with the ORM–D marking. Some commenters also argued against any phase-out based on the historically safe transportation of limited quantity material under the ORM–D system. Commenters further stated that PHMSA should not adopt the international system simply based on the opportunity to align the HMR with international standards.
Allowing dual systems for communicating packages of limited quantity material would likely cause confusion and place unreasonable burdens on carriers and some shippers to train their hazmat employees to recognize and comply with both systems. We believe adopting a single global system for the transportation of limited quantity material will greatly improve safety and efficiency by decreasing the aforementioned potential for delays and confusion during transportation and by removing the burden of providing training in dual systems used to communicate the transportation of limited quantity material. However, we recognize the need to provide sufficient time for domestic shippers and carriers to adjust to the revised system and are sympathetic to the concerns expressed by ACA, HDMA and others regarding this need. Therefore, in this notice we are proposing only to authorize the continued use of packagings marked “Consumer commodity, ORM–D” until December 31, 2015 for domestic highway, rail and vessel transportation.
In the January 19, 2011 final rule, PHMSA revised the regulation for overpacks (as defined in § 171.8) by requiring the “OVERPACK” marking on an overpack containing limited quantity packaging if all markings are not visible. DGAC expressed concern over the manner in which the language in the requirement is phrased, and that it implies all markings on each packaging in the overpack must be visible. DGAC noted that this is not consistent with the
The HMR do not currently require that every individual mark (or label) on each package contained in an overpack be visible. For example, as stated in § 173.25(a)(2), an overpack must be marked with the proper shipping name and identification number (when applicable) for each hazardous material contained in the overpack, unless marking and labels representative of each hazardous material in the overpack are visible. We recommend where packages are stacked and/or banded on a pallet as part of an overpack, the packages should be positioned, when possible, so that the markings and labels are visible on the outside of the overpack. However, this does not mean that every package marking (or label) must be visible or the overpack must be marked accordingly. With regard to the “OVERPACK” marking requirement for overpacks containing limited quantity and ORM packages, in this NPRM we are accepting DGAC's appeal and are proposing to revise § 173.25(a)(6) to clarify that not all limited quantity and ORM markings must be visible and that the marking requirement is only applicable to the limited quantity and ORM mark itself. Additionally, a new § 173.25(a)(7) is proposed to be added for clarity to separate limited quantity and ORM overpack marking requirements from excepted quantity overpack marking requirements.
Formerly, § 172.315 excepted for other than transportation by aircraft, a package containing a limited quantity substance or article from being marked with the proper shipping name if it was marked with a square-on-point containing the UN identification (ID) number of the limited quantity substance or article. In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we provided a one-year transition period to authorize continued use of this marking before the revisions to the limited quantity markings become effective. ACA, DGAC, and PPG all stated the one-year transition period does not allow sufficient time to deplete stock(s) of packagings pre-printed with the square-on-point mark containing the ID number and requested an extension of three- to five-years. Specifically, ACA requested a three- to five-year timeframe while DGAC and PPG ask for a three-year timeframe. ACA, DGAC, and PPG maintained that without a longer transition period, shippers will be forced to remark packaging at their cost and there is no impact to safety by allowing continued use of the existing marking. Appellants also pointed out this alternative limited quantity marking communicates more information than the newly adopted markings or the original ORM–D markings. They stated that PHMSA already provides for a two- to three-year transition period for the phase-out of the ORM–D marking, depending on the mode of transportation. They also requested, for clarification, that any transition periods be included in § 171.14 (transitional provisions) and § 172.300 (marking applicability).
We agree that shippers should be provided with the same transition period to continue using the square-on-point mark containing the UN identification (ID) number that was provided for the continued use of the ORM–D marking(s). In the administrative appeal final rule (HM–215K; RIN 2137–AE76), we granted the appeals submitted by ACA, DGAC, and PPG and revised § 172.315 accordingly to extend the transition period to December 31, 2013. The administrative final rule also authorized, for domestic air transportation, use of the square-on-point mark containing the ID number to continue until December 31, 2012.
In response to administrative appeals filed by ACA, HDMA and DGAC, in this NPRM we are proposing that for other than air transportation, continued use of the square-on-point mark containing the ID number would be authorized until December 31, 2015. PHMSA is also soliciting public comment on whether for other than air transportation, a previously authorized limited quantity package marking (i.e., proper shipping name only) should be reauthorized for a similar transition period.
In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we revised the 49 CFR 175.10 passenger exceptions to allow passengers and crew members to place certain spare fuel cell cartridges containing a flammable liquid (Class 3) or corrosive material (Class 8) in checked baggage. We limited the scope of fuel cell cartridge chemistries allowed in checked baggage by excluding fuel cell cartridges containing Divisions 2.1 (flammable gas) and 4.3 (dangerous when wet) material. Although this is inconsistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions, in that ICAO only restricts spare fuel cell cartridges containing Division 4.3 material from checked baggage, we believed that the prohibition should include spare cartridges containing Division 2.1 materials. Flammable gases are generally prohibited from transportation on passenger-carrying aircraft as cargo. When combined with the uncertainty of the effect of baggage handling on the durability of these products when stowed in a passenger's checked baggage, the risks posed are of concern. In their administrative appeals, FCHEA and LSI requested that PHMSA revise § 175.10 to align with the ICAO Technical Instructions and allow spare fuel cell cartridges containing Division 2.1 flammable gas to be carried in checked baggage.
We are granting the appeal for reconsideration of the issue by providing additional opportunity for comment. We are soliciting public comment until July 24, 2012 for the limited purpose of gathering information to help us determine whether or not to allow fuel cell cartridges containing Division 2.1 flammable gas to be carried aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft in checked baggage.
In the January 19, 2011 final rule, PHMSA adopted requirements for certain consumer commodities intended for transportation by aircraft in new § 173.167. The new description and identification number (ID8000) are consistent with the consumer commodity entry in the ICAO Technical Instructions in Packing Instruction Y963. In its appeal submitted in response to the final rule, DGAC expressed concerns that the alignment between the two standards was not consistent. For example, DGAC pointed out that absorbent material requirements and stack test criteria were not included in the § 173.167 packaging section.
DGAC is correct in its assessment of the inconsistencies that exist between the consumer commodity provisions adopted in the HMR and the ICAO Technical Instructions. Thus, we are granting DGAC's administrative appeal and propose to revise § 173.167 accordingly.
The detailed hazardous materials incident reporting requirements of the HMR allow for exceptions from these requirements, specifically, § 171.16(d)(2) excepts, under certain conditions, the unintentional release of a hazardous material properly classed as ORM–D and a PG III material in Class or Division 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8, or 9, from the written reporting requirements. ACA indicated in its appeal that the reporting requirements as they apply to limited quantity material should be reviewed based on the eventual phase-out of the ORM–D hazard class and suggested the exception for ORM–D material should be extended to limited quantity packagings.
We agree with ACA that relief from incident reporting previously provided to ORM–D material should continue to be provided for such materials now transported as limited quantities. We are not, however, proposing to extend the exception from incident reporting to limited quantity Class 7 (radioactive) material, instruments, and articles due to the unique nature of the hazard and because this type of material was never authorized to be reclassed and transported as ORM–D. Additionally, this exception is not applicable to air transportation.
The materials of trade (MOTS) exceptions of the HMR allow certain hazardous material articles and substances, including ORM–D, to be transported by motor vehicle as part of a business operation under less regulation.
Similar to the applicability of written incident reporting exceptions to limited quantity material, our review of the HMR revealed that we did not amend the materials of trade exceptions under the January 19, 2011 final rule to reflect the eventual phase-out of the ORM–D system. Similar to the revisions to the written incident reporting requirements, we believe there is no impact to safety by extending the exception for ORM–D to limited quantity material. Most materials reclassed as ORM–D are limited quantity material themselves; an ORM–D is a limited quantity material that also meets the definition of a “consumer commodity.” See § 171.8 for the definition of consumer commodity.
In this notice, we are proposing to extend the MOTS exceptions to limited quantity packages consistent with the exception provided to ORM–D material. We are not, however, proposing to extend the exception to limited quantities of Division 4.3 (dangerous when wet) liquid material or Class 7 (radioactive) material, instruments or articles due to the unique nature of these hazards and because these materials were never authorized to be reclassed and transported as ORM–D. Additionally, we propose to clarify that exceptions for limited quantity material also include limited quantity material authorized under § 173.63 for certain Division 1.4S explosives and § 173.306 for compressed gases.
At the 23rd Meeting of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP), held October 11–21, 2011, the DGP recommended amending Part 8 of the ICAO Technical Instructions applicable to passengers and crew members and the hazardous materials (dangerous goods) they may introduce aboard an aircraft either in checked or carry-on baggage or on one's person. Such provisions form the basis of similar provisions provided in § 175.10 of the HMR. One recommendation adopted by the DGP addressed concerns over wheelchairs and other mobility aids found activated after flight. Additionally, the DGP addressed the absence of any reference to mobility aids powered by nickel metal hydride batteries, and wheelchairs and other mobility aids specifically designed to allow its battery or batteries to be removed from the device and carried aboard the aircraft by a passenger within a protective bag or pouch. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend the HMR by addressing the potential for unintended activation of all stowed devices on an aircraft and providing for the intentional removal of a lithium ion battery from a device and its stowage in the passenger cabin. PHMSA intends to address remaining Part 8 and § 175.10 revisions, including wheelchairs and other mobility aids powered by nickel metal hydride batteries, in a separate rulemaking under Docket PHMSA–2012–0027 (HM–215L).
The ICAO Technical Instructions and the HMR limit lithium ion batteries used to power portable electronic devices and medical devices to 160 watt-hours and 25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content, respectively. Additionally, the ICAO Technical Instructions and the HMR limit any spare lithium ion batteries used to power portable electronic devices and medical devices to carry-on baggage only. At its 23rd Meeting, the DGP was informed of lithium ion batteries developed for wheelchairs and other mobility aids which did not exceed 160 watt-hours (13.5 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content). Therefore, the DGP adopted a proposal introduced by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to include spare lithium ion batteries for battery-powered wheelchairs and other mobility aids in Part 8 consistent with the provisions for spare lithium ion batteries used to power portable electronic devices and medical devices. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing similar provisions by revising § 175.10(a)(17) of the HMR.
The DGP was also informed of new mobility aid designs which require the lithium ion battery to be removed from the device to permit efficient and effective stowage and transport of the mobility aid in the cargo compartment of the aircraft. The DGP agreed it would be safer to require that the removed lithium ion battery be carried in the passenger cabin rather than being stowed as checked baggage with the mobility aid. Subsequently, at the same meeting, the DGP was informed of mobility aid designs equipped with lithium ion batteries, which required removal for stowage (e.g., collapsible), that exceed the 160 watt-hour limit (13.5 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content). The DGP Panel therefore adopted an upper limit of 300 watt-hours (25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content) for batteries which must be removed and carried aboard in the passenger cabin. The DGP Panel agreed, that when applicable, the battery must be removed by the user. Because the HMR currently places an upper limit on such batteries to 25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content (300 watt-hours), no corresponding revision to § 175.10(a)(17) of the HMR is necessary.
Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to amend the HMR for consistency with the ICAO DGP/23 Panel recommendations. This NPRM also proposes to clarify and correct some related amendments adopted in the original January 19, 2011 final rule. See the Section-by-Section discussion of specific amendments being proposed in § 175.10 in Section V. of this preamble.
In this notice, PHMSA responds to an administrative appeal submitted in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010 (HM–231; 75 FR 5376) that adopted miscellaneous amendments to packaging provisions in the HMR. The final rule revised recordkeeping requirements in § 173.22 for shipper retention of manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) and required shippers to maintain a packaging's manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for 365 days subsequent to offering the package for transportation. The final rule also revised § 178.2(c) to strengthen manufacturer notification requirements and to allow them greater flexibility in how they provide the notification. The final rule was effective on October 1, 2010.
On March 3, 2010, we received an administrative appeal from DGAC requesting that PHMSA delay the effective date of the final rule for two years to provide sufficient time for packaging manufacturers to review their current packaging design manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for compliance with the new requirement to ensure closure instructions provide a repeatable method of closing the packaging consistent with the way it was closed prior to performing qualification testing on the packaging design.
We did not grant the DGAC administrative appeal in our September 30, 2010 final rule (75 FR 60333) that responded to a petition for rulemaking and several other administrative appeals. Specifically, we did not grant DGAC's request for a two-year extension of the effective date; however, we did agree that aligning the review and preparation of a packaging's manufacturer notification with its periodic retest merited consideration because it would facilitate the packaging manufacturer's and distributor's compliance with new packaging manufacturer notification requirements adopted in the rule. Thus, in the September 30, 2010 final rule, we revised the recordkeeping requirement from 365 days to a two-year period for combination packagings and a one-year period for single packagings consistent with a typical packaging design's periodic retest frequency.
DGAC submitted a follow-up administrative appeal objecting to our revision in the September 30, 2010 final rule to the recordkeeping requirement for manufacturer notification and requested that PHMSA return the recordkeeping duration to the 365 days adopted under the February 2, 2010 final rule. DGAC stated that while the preamble discussion in the September 30, 2010 final rule recognized its concerns in the initial appeal, the regulatory response did not grant its request for the extension of the effective date and, instead, created a recordkeeping requirement of two years that is more difficult to comply with than the original one-year (365-day) requirement in the February 2, 2010 final rule. DGAC claimed there is no need for a shipper to retain a copy of a packaging's manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for longer than 365 days. DGAC also asked whether the words “supporting documentation” were intentionally omitted from the September 30, 2011 final rule revision to 49 CFR 178.601(g)(1). Further, DGAC requested that PHMSA amend 49 CFR 171.14 to extend the effective date of the February 2, 2010 final rule to October 1, 2011.
Although not stated clearly in both final rules, it was our intent that the new manufacturer notification requirements apply to all applicable hazardous materials packagings manufactured on or after October 1, 2010. Packagings manufactured before this date should already conform to HMR performance standards for their design type in effect at the time of manufacture. As we stated in the February 2, 2010 final rule, we revised this regulation to address an increase in hazardous materials releases as a result of improperly closed packagings. In our opinion, review of existing manufacturer notifications for packaging designs that should already be in compliance with the HMR would involve much less effort than DGAC described in its administrative appeal. We also believe sufficient time has elapsed since the February 2, 2010 final rule was published to complete this task and any additional time is not warranted.
Therefore, in this notice, we are denying DGAC's appeal to extend the effective date of the rule. However, we are proposing to amend § 178.2(c)(1)(ii) of the HMR based on DGAC's request to revert back to the original recordkeeping retention duration for manufacturer notification to the 365-day period adopted in the February 2, 2010 final rule. Additionally, PHMSA is proposing to amend § 173.22(a)(4)(ii) by requiring a shipper to retain manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for a period of 90 days once a package is offered to the initial carrier for transportation in commerce.
In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to clarify that only bulk packagings and cylinders manufactured in accordance with Part 178 of the HMR are excepted from the manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) retention requirements specified in § 173.22(a)(4) if such information is permanently embossed or printed on the packaging. This exception was only provided with such packagings in mind and was originally adopted as a result of public comment.
For clarification, we did not revise § 178.601(g)(1) in the September 30, 2010 final rule as DGAC asserts; we did correct punctuation in §§ 178.601(g)(8)(xiii)(C) and (g)(8)(xiii)(D), which do not include references to supporting documentation. Moreover, we note that the requirement for supporting documentation adopted in the February 2, 2010 final rule remains in § 178.601(g)(1) with the statement that the method used to determine whether the inner packaging, including closure, of a Variation 1 packaging maintains an equivalent level of performance to the originally tested packaging design must be “documented in writing by the person certifying compliance and retained in accordance with paragraph (l)” of § 178.601. Therefore, no further revision of this paragraph is needed or is proposed in this notice.
This section prescribes written hazardous material incident report requirements. In this notice, we are proposing to revise the paragraph (d) exceptions to reflect the eventual phase-out of the ORM–D system on December 31, 2015 and to extend the exception provided for material classed as ORM–D to hazardous materials authorized for transportation as limited quantity material under Subparts C through E and Subpart G of Part 173 of the HMR.
Section 172.200 prescribes the applicability of shipping paper requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials. In the January 19 final rule, paragraph (b)(3) was revised to remove the exceptions for ORM–D material in conformance with revisions
Section 173.315 prescribes the requirements for marking packages containing limited quantity material. Based on administrative appeals submitted and requests to make the requirements for limited quantity marking clearer, we propose to revise § 172.315 to allow the continued use of alternative limited quantity markings (i.e., square-on-point with Identification Number) marking for the same duration offered for continued use of the ORM–D marking, that is, until December 31, 2015. The expiration date for the square-on-point with Identification Number marking remains December 31, 2012 for air transportation.
Section 172.316 prescribes marking requirements for packages containing materials classed as ORM–D and ORM–D–AIR. As adopted in the January 19 final rule, the marking prescribed in this section will no longer be authorized for limited quantities effective January 1, 2014. In this document, we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to the appeal submitted by HDMA. The expiration date for the ORM–D–AIR hazard class marking remains December 31, 2012 for air transportation.
This section prescribes exceptions from certain requirements of the HMR for the transportation of hazardous materials defined as material of trade when transported by motor vehicle. See § 171.8. In this notice, we are proposing to revise the paragraph (d) exceptions to reflect the phase-out of the ORM–D system on December 31, 2015 and extend the exception provided ORM–D material to hazardous materials authorized for transportation as limited quantity material under Subparts C through E and Subpart G of Part 173 of the HMR. See section II.F for a comprehensive discussion of these proposed changes.
Section 173.22 prescribes shipper responsibilities. In this document, PHMSA responds to an administrative appeal submitted in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010 (HM–231; 75 FR 5376) that adopted miscellaneous amendments to packaging provisions in the HMR. The final rule revised recordkeeping requirements in § 173.22 for shipper retention of manufacturer notification (including closure instructions). The amendments adopted required shippers to maintain a packaging's manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for 365 days subsequent to offering the package for transportation.
In this notice, PHMSA is proposing to revise § 173.22(a)(4) to clarify that only bulk packagings and cylinders manufactured in accordance with Part 178 of the HMR are excepted from the manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) retention requirements specified in § 173.22(a)(4) (shipper responsibilities) if such information is permanently embossed or printed on the packaging. Additionally, we are proposing to revise the same paragraph to require that, if applicable, a shipper only be required to retain the packaging design's manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for 90 days once offered to the initial carrier for transportation. See Section III of this preamble for a more comprehensive discussion.
This section prescribes requirements for the transportation of authorized packages in overpacks used for protection or convenience of handling or to consolidate packages. In this document, we are proposing to revise § 173.25(a)(6) to clarify that all markings on each package containing a limited quantity or ORM–D material in an overpack are not required to be visible, but rather, that markings representative of each hazardous material in the overpack are visible as specified in § 173.25(a)(2) and (a)(3). Additionally, we are proposing to correct an error made in the January 19, 2011 final rule by revising paragraphs (a)(6) and the new (a)(7) applicable to overpacked packages of limited quantities, ORM–D, and excepted quantity materials to reaffirm that an overpack is only required to be marked with the word “OVERPACK” if specification markings, when required, are not visible.
Because these amendments were not proposed in the original NPRM, nor were they adopted in the January 19, 2011 final rule, we believe notice and comment are appropriate. We are therefore granting the administrative appeals and soliciting public comment until July 24, 2012 for the purpose of gathering information to help determine if § 173.25(a)(6) and (a)(7) should be revised to clarify that all markings on each package containing a limited quantity, ORM–D, or excepted quantity material in an overpack, are not required to be visible; rather, all markings representative of each hazardous material in the overpack are to be visible and whether the required use of the “OVERPACK” mark should be expanded in accordance with the various international standards.
Section 173.63 specifies packaging exceptions for certain Division 1.4S explosive articles authorized for reclassification and transport as ORM–D material. Such articles in Division 1.4S may continue to be reclassed as ORM–D and offered for transportation until December 31, 2013. Thus, in this notice we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to the appeal submitted by HDMA.
Section 173.144 defines “Other Regulated Materials, ORM–D.” In this notice, we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to the appeal submitted by HDMA.
Sections 173.150 through 173.155 prescribe the exceptions for certain Class 3, 8 and 9 and Division 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 hazardous materials under the HMR. In response to HDMA's administrative appeal, in this notice, we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in each of these sections' consumer commodity paragraphs, where applicable.
Section 173.156 prescribes exceptions for the Other Regulated Materials, ORM–D hazard class. In this notice, we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to HDMA's administrative appeal.
Section 173.161 prescribes packaging requirements for chemical kits and first aid kits containing small amounts of hazardous materials. In this notice, we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to HDMA's administrative appeal.
In the January 19 final rule, a new section 173.165 was added to prescribe packaging and other requirements for “Polyester resin kits, UN3269” formerly contained in § 172.102, special provision 40 and § 173.152(b)(4) of the HMR. In this notice, we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to HDMA's administrative appeal.
In the January 19 final rule, a new section 173.167 was added to indicate authorized materials and quantity limits for articles and substances that may be described as “ID8000, Consumer commodity,” eligible for transport by aircraft and authorized transportation by all modes. This notice addresses inconsistencies with the ICAO Technical Instructions brought to our attention in appeals submitted in response to the final rule. Appellants are correct in their assessment of the inconsistencies that exist between the consumer commodity provisions adopted in the HMR and the ICAO Technical Instructions. We are granting their administrative appeals and soliciting public comment for the limited purpose of gathering any information to help determine if we should revise the § 173.167 amendments adopted in the final rule consistent with Packing Instruction Y963 of the ICAO Technical Instructions.
Section 173.230 prescribes the requirements for fuel cells offered for transportation by all modes. In paragraph (g) of the final rule, PHMSA adopted limited quantity provisions for such articles by aircraft consistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions. In paragraph (h), PHMSA also adopted a prohibition of reclassification to “Consumer commodity, ORM–D–AIR” for transportation by aircraft. In this notice, we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class for other than air transportation from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to HDMA's administrative appeal.
Section 173.306 prescribes requirements for limited quantity of compressed gases. In paragraph (i)(2), we are proposing to revise the effective date for expiration of the authorization to reclassify to the ORM–D hazard class from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015 in response to HDMA's administrative appeal.
Section 173.309 prescribes requirements for fire extinguishers. In this NPRM, we are proposing to revise the entire section for clarity. First, we are proposing to move the limited quantity requirements and exceptions from paragraph (a) to paragraph (b) as we typically indicate regulation first in most sections followed by any exceptions to that regulation. Second, we are proposing to add regulatory text from § 172.102(c)(1) Special provision 18 to revised paragraph (a) that prescribes the conditions when specification cylinders may be described, offered and transported in commerce as fire extinguishers. Further, we solicit public comment on whether we should consider allowing UN specification cylinders as fire extinguishers in § 173.309. Lastly, we are proposing to revise paragraph (b) by excepting a limited quantity package of fire extinguishers from shipping papers when transported by highway or rail if marked in accordance with § 172.315. This exception is provided in addition to the existing HMR exceptions from labeling (unless offered for transportation by aircraft), placarding, Part 174 and Part 177 for limited quantity packages of fire extinguishers.
In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we amended the HMR to align with international standards by designating paragraphs (a)(17) and (a)(18) as paragraphs (a)(18) and (a)(19) and by adding a new paragraph (a)(17) that authorized a mobility aid such as a wheelchair, powered by a lithium ion battery, to be transported aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft.
For consistency with the wheelchair or other battery-powered mobility aid provisions in § 175.10(a)(15) and (a)(16), and the provisions provided for the carriage of portable electronic devices powered by lithium ion batteries in § 175.10(a)(17) (now § 175.10(a)(18)), the final rule merged applicable provisions for the transportation of lithium ion battery-powered mobility aids into a new § 175.10(a)(17). We stated that removal of the battery may be necessary based on results of the required visual inspection or if the mobility aid was to be offered to the operator as checked baggage. It was not our intent to require an operator or passenger to remove a properly secured lithium ion battery from a mobility aid that was not specifically designed to allow its batteries to be removed. Further, it is the responsibility of the operator to determine if the wheelchair or other mobility aid is designed to have its battery removed by the user. Information provided by the user or visual inspection may be used in this process. Therefore, a revision of certain amendments adopted in § 175.10(a)(17) of the final rule is required and are as follows:
• A mobility aid such as a wheelchair, powered by a lithium ion battery, must be transported as checked baggage aboard an aircraft. This requirement is consistent with the 14 CFR Part 382 provisions under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA);
• Provided the wheelchair or other mobility aid is not specifically designed to allow its lithium ion battery to be removed, battery removal is not required;
• If the battery is to remain installed, a wheelchair or other mobility aid may be loaded and stowed in any orientation determined by the operator necessary to prevent unintentional activation of the mobility aid or short circuiting of the battery and is equally protected as the upright orientation would provide;
• The wheelchair or other mobility aid must be protected from damage by the movement of baggage, mail, service items, or other cargo; and
• As adopted in the January 19, 2011 final rule, a lithium ion battery specifically designed to be removed from a mobility aid (e.g., collapsible) by the user and any spare batteries must be transported in carry-on baggage in accordance with paragraph (vii). The carry-on battery must not exceed 25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content and a maximum of one spare
Section 176.905 prescribes specific requirements for motor vehicles or mechanical equipment powered by internal combustion engines that are offered for transportation and transported by vessel. In the January 19, 2011 final rule, PHMSA should have revised the paragraph (i) introductory text to clarify that if any of the exceptions criteria were met, the articles were excepted from the requirements of the HMR. Additionally, PHMSA is proposing in this notice to remove the heading for each exception criterion in paragraph (i) for clarity. They are not necessary and have resulted in confusion among our stakeholders as some of the headings were perceived to be inconsistent with the IMDG Code.
Section 178.2 prescribes HMR applicability and responsibility required of packaging manufacturers. In this notice, PHMSA responds to an administrative appeal submitted in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010 (HM–231; 75 FR 5376) that adopted miscellaneous amendments to packaging provisions in the HMR. The final rule revised recordkeeping requirements in § 173.22 for shipper retention of manufacturer notification (including closure instructions). The amendments adopted required shippers to maintain a packaging manufacturer's notification (including closure instructions) for 365 days subsequent to offering the package for transportation. The final rule also revised § 178.2(c) to strengthen manufacturer notification requirements and to allow manufacturers greater flexibility in how they provide the notification. The final rule was effective on October 1, 2010.
In response to a misunderstanding of an administrative appeal, PHMSA revised the recordkeeping requirement from 365 days to a two-year period for combination packagings and a one-year period for single packagings consistent with a typical packaging design's periodic retest frequency. Subsequently, DGAC submitted another administrative appeal requesting PHMSA revise the notification retention requirements in § 178.2(c)(1)(ii) back to the original one year from date of issuance. Thus, in this notice we are proposing to amend the HMR based on DGAC's request to revert back to the original recordkeeping retention duration for manufacturer notification to one year.
This NPRM is published under the following statutory authorities:
1. 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. This NPRM responds to administrative appeals of certain amendments adopted in final rule PHMSA–2009–0126 (HM–215K) published on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3308). Additionally, it responds to administrative appeals of certain amendments adopted in a final rule PHMSA–2006–25736 (HM–231) published on February 2, 2010 (75 FR 5376).
2. 49 U.S.C. 5120(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that, to the extent practicable, regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce are consistent with standards adopted by international authorities.
This notice is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Additionally, E.O. 13563 supplements and reaffirms E.O. 12866, stressing that, to the extent permitted by law, an agency rulemaking action must be based on benefits that justify its costs, impose the least burden, consider cumulative burdens, maximize benefits, use performance objectives, and assess available alternatives.
This notice applies to offerors and carriers of hazardous materials, such as chemical manufacturers, chemical users and suppliers, packaging manufacturers, distributors, radiopharmaceutical companies, and training companies. Benefits resulting from the adoption of the amendments in this notice include enhanced transportation safety resulting from the consistency of domestic and international hazard communications and continued access to foreign markets by U.S. manufacturers of hazardous materials. A regulatory evaluation is available for review in the public docket for this rulemaking.
In most instances, the amendments in this rulemaking reduce compliance costs of the regulated population, and it is likely that these changes are possible without reducing public safety. Although we were not able to quantify all of the costs and benefits for most of the amendments, the net benefits of those we were able to quantify are approximately $3.5 million per year. The following table summarizes the costs and benefits for the different amendments being proposed:
This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”), and the President's memorandum on “Preemption” published in the
The Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) that preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements for certain subjects. The subjects are:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and
(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.
This notice addresses all the covered subject items above and preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. This notice is necessary to incorporate revisions to the HMR based on administrative appeals submitted in response to the January 19, 2011 final rule, effective January 1, 2011. Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at section 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the
This notice was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this notice does not have tribal implications, does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, and is required by statute, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This notice has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information and recordkeeping requests.
This notice identifies a revised information collection request that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval based on the requirements proposed in this notice. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect proposed changes in this notice, and estimates the information collection and recordkeeping burden as proposed in this notice to be as follows:
• This notice reduces the OMB Control Number 2137–0572 information collection burden by $1,654,384 annually.
PHMSA will submit the revised information collection and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for approval.
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
This notice does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $141.3 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we developed an assessment to determine the effects of these revisions on the environment and whether a more comprehensive environmental impact statement may be required. Our findings concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the final rule. Consistency in the regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials aids in shippers' understanding of what is required and permits shippers to more easily comply with safety regulations and avoid the potential for environmental damage or contamination. For interested parties, an environmental assessment was included with the January 19, 2011 final rule available in the public docket. Additionally, we do not see any significant environmental impacts associated with the amendments proposed in this notice regarding the administrative appeals submitted in response to the January 19 final rule. We welcome comment on this initial determination.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have assessed the effects of this notice to ensure that it does not exclude imports that meet this objective. Accordingly, this rulemaking is consistent with PHMSA's obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Packaging and containers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium.
Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Maritime carriers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is proposing to amend Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter I as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.53; Pub. L. 101–410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–134 section 31001.
2. In § 171.16, paragraph (d)(2)(i) is revised to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) An unintentional release of a hazardous material when:
(i) The material is—
(A) A limited quantity material packaged under authorized exceptions in the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table of this subchapter excluding Class 7 (radioactive) material; or
(B) A Packing Group III material in Class or Division 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8, or 9;
(ii) The material is released from a package having a capacity of less than 20 liters (5.2 gallons) for liquids or less than 30 kg (66 pounds) for solids;
(iii) The total amount of material released is less than 20 liters (5.2 gallons) for liquids or less than 30 kg (66 pounds) for solids; and
(iv) The material is not—
(A) Offered for transportation or transported by aircraft;
(B) A hazardous waste; or
(C) An undeclared hazardous material;
3. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 44701; 49 CFR 1.53.
4. In § 172.200, paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) A limited quantity package unless the material is offered for transportation by aircraft or vessel and, until December 31, 2015, a package of ORM–D material authorized by this subchapter on October 1, 2010, when offered for transportation by highway, rail or vessel.
5. In § 172.315, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
(d)
(2)
6. In § 172.316, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Until December 31, 2015, ORM–D for an ORM–D material that is packaged in accordance with §§ 173.63, 173.150 through 173.156 and 173.306.
7. The authority citation for part 173 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.
8. In § 173.6, paragraph (a)(6) is added to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) A limited quantity package prepared in accordance with §§ 173.27, 173.63, 173.150, 173.151(b) and (c), 173.152, 173.153, 173.154, 173.155, 173.161, 173.165, 173.167 and 173.306(i) of this subchapter. Division 4.3 substances must be prepared in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Class 7 (radioactive) substances, instruments and articles are not authorized under the provisions of this section.
9. In § 173.22, paragraph (a)(4) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4)(i) For a DOT Specification or UN standard packaging subject to the requirements of part 178 of this subchapter, a person must perform all functions necessary to bring the package into compliance with parts 173 and 178 of this subchapter, as identified by the packaging manufacturer or subsequent distributor (for example, applying closures consistent with the manufacturer's closure instructions) in accordance with § 178.2 of this subchapter.
(ii) For other than a bulk packaging or a cylinder, a person must retain a copy of the manufacturer's notification, including closure instructions (
(iii) When applicable, a person must retain a copy of any supporting documentation used to determine an equivalent level of performance under the selective testing variation in § 178.601(g)(1) of this subchapter. Such documentation is to be retained by the person certifying compliance with § 178.601(g)(1) as specified in § 178.601(l).
10. In § 173.25, paragraph (a)(6) is revised and new paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6)
(7)
11. In § 173.63, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Until December 31, 2012, a package containing such articles may be marked with the proper shipping name “Cartridges, small arms” or “Cartridges, power device (
12. Section 173.144 is revised to read as follows:
Until December 31, 2015 and for the purposes of this subchapter, “ORM–D material” means a material such as a consumer commodity, cartridges, small arms or cartridges, power devices which, although otherwise subject to the regulations of this subchapter, presents a limited hazard during transportation due to its form, quantity and packaging. The article or substance must be a material for which exceptions are provided in Column (8A) of the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table.
13. In § 173.150, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(c)
14. In § 173.151, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
(b)
(1) For flammable solids in Packing Group II, inner packagings not over 1.0 kg (2.2 pounds) net capacity each, packed in a strong outer packaging.
(2) For flammable solids in Packing Group III, inner packagings not over 5.0 kg (11 pounds) net capacity each, packed in a strong outer packaging.
(c)
15. In § 173.152, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(c)
16. In § 173.153, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(c)
17. In § 173.154, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(c)
18. In § 173.155, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(c)
19. Section 173.156 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Exceptions for hazardous materials shipments in the following paragraphs
(b) Packagings for limited quantity and ORM–D are specified according to hazard class in §§ 173.150 through 173.155 and in 173.306 and 173.309(b). In addition to exceptions provided for limited quantity and ORM–D materials elsewhere in this part, the following are provided:
(1) Strong outer packagings as specified in this part, marking requirements specified in subpart D of part 172 of this subchapter, and the 30 kg (66 pounds) gross weight limitation are not required for packages of limited quantity materials marked in accordance with § 172.315 of this subchapter, or, until December 31, 2015, materials classed and marked as ORM–D and described as a Consumer commodity, as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter, when—
(i) Unitized in cages, carts, boxes or similar overpacks;
(ii) Offered for transportation or transported by:
(A) Rail;
(B) Private or contract motor carrier; or
(C) Common carrier in a vehicle under exclusive use for such service; and
(iii) Transported to or from a manufacturer, a distribution center, or a retail outlet, or transported to a disposal facility from one offeror.
(2) The 30 kg (66 pounds) gross weight limitation does not apply to packages of limited quantity materials marked in accordance with § 172.315 of this subchapter, or, until December 31, 2015, materials classed and marked as ORM–D and described as a Consumer commodity, as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter, when offered for transportation or transported by highway or rail between a manufacturer, a distribution center, and a retail outlet provided—
(i) Inner packagings conform to the quantity limits for inner packagings specified in §§ 173.150(b), 173.152(b), 173.154(b), 173.155(b), 173.306(a) and (b), and 173.309(b), as appropriate;
(ii) The inner packagings are packed into corrugated fiberboard trays to prevent them from moving freely;
(iii) The trays are placed in a fiberboard box which is banded and secured to a wooden pallet by metal, fabric, or plastic straps, to form a single palletized unit;
(iv) The package conforms to the general packaging requirements of subpart B of this part;
(v) The maximum net quantity of hazardous material permitted on one palletized unit is 250 kg (550 pounds); and
(vi) The package is properly marked in accordance with § 172.315 or, until December 31, 2015, § 172.316 of this subchapter.
20. In section 173.161, paragraph (d)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) Consumer commodities. Until December 31, 2015, a limited quantity package containing a “consumer commodity” as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter may be renamed “Consumer commodity” and reclassed as ORM–D or, until December 31, 2012, as ORM–D–AIR material and offered for transportation and transported in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subchapter in effect on October 1, 2010.
21. In section 173.165, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(c) Consumer commodities. Until December 31, 2015, a limited quantity package containing a “consumer commodity” as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter may be renamed “Consumer commodity” and reclassed as ORM–D or, until December 31, 2012, as ORM–D–AIR material and offered for transportation and transported in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subchapter in effect on October 1, 2010.
22. Section 173.167 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Effective January 1, 2013, a “consumer commodity” (see § 171.8 of this subchapter) when authorized transportation by aircraft may only include articles or substances of Class 2 (non-toxic aerosols only), Class 3 (Packing Group II and III only), Division 6.1 (Packing Group III only), UN3077, UN3082, UN3175, UN3334, and UN3335, provided such materials do not have a subsidiary risk and are authorized aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft. Consumer commodities are excepted from the specification outer packaging requirements of this subchapter. Packages prepared under the requirements of this section may be offered for transportation and transported by all modes. Additionally, the following apply:
(1)
(ii) Liquids, in inner packagings not exceeding 500 mL (16.9 ounces) each;
(iii) Solids, in inner packagings not exceeding 500 g (1.0 pounds) each; or
(iv) Any combination thereof not to exceed 30 kg (66 pounds) gross weight as prepared for shipment.
(2)
(3)
(4) Pressure differential capability. Except for UN3082, inner packagings intended to contain liquids must be capable of meeting the pressure differential requirements (75 kPa) prescribed in § 173.27(c) of this part. The capability of a packaging to withstand an internal pressure without leakage that produces the specified pressure differential should be determined by successfully testing design samples or prototypes.
(5)
(6)
(b) When offered for transportation by aircraft, packages prepared under the requirements of this section are to be marked as a limited quantity in accordance with § 172.315(b)(1) and labeled as a Class 9 article or substance, as appropriate, in accordance with subpart E of part 172 of this subchapter.
23. In § 173.230, paragraph (h) is revised to read as follows:
(h)
24. In § 173.306, paragraph (i)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(i) * * *
(2) Consumer commodities. Until December 31, 2015, a limited quantity package containing a “consumer commodity” as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter may be renamed “Consumer commodity” and reclassed as ORM–D or, until December 31, 2012, as ORM–D–AIR material and offered for transportation and transported in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subchapter in effect on October 1, 2010.
25. Section 173.309 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Specification 3A, 3AA, 3E, 3AL, 4B, 4BA, 4B240ET or 4BW (§§ 178.36, 178.37, 178.42, 178.46, 178.50, 178.51, 178.55 and 178.61 of this subchapter) cylinders are authorized for manufacture and use as fire extinguishers under the following conditions:
(1) Extinguishing agents must be nonflammable, non-poisonous, non-corrosive, and commercially free from corroding components.
(2) Each fire extinguisher must be charged with a nonflammable, non-poisonous, dry gas that has a dew-point at or below minus 46.7 °C (minus 52 °F) at 101 kPa (1 atmosphere) and is free of corroding components, to not more than the service pressure of the cylinder.
(3) A fire extinguisher may not contain more than 30% carbon dioxide by volume or any other corrosive extinguishing agent.
(4) Each fire extinguisher must be protected externally by suitable corrosion-resisting coating.
(5) Specification 3E and 4BA cylinders must be packed in strong non-bulk outer packagings. The outside of the combination packaging must be marked with an indication that the inner packagings conform to the prescribed specifications.
(b)
(1) Each fire extinguisher must have contents which are nonflammable, non-poisonous, and noncorrosive as defined in this subchapter;
(2) Each non-specification fire extinguisher must be packaged as an inner packaging within a combination outer packaging. Examples of acceptable outer packagings for non-specification fire extinguishers include large cartons, racks, cages or other suitable enclosures;
(3) Non-specification cylinders are authorized as fire extinguishers subject to the following conditions:
(i) The internal volume of each cylinder may not exceed 18 L (1,100 cubic inches). For fire extinguishers not exceeding 900 mL (55 cubic inches) capacity, the liquid portion of the gas plus any additional liquid or solid must not completely fill the container at 55 °C (130 °F). Fire extinguishers exceeding 900 mL (55 cubic inches) capacity may not contain any liquefied compressed gas;
(ii) Each fire extinguisher manufactured on and after January 1, 1976, must be designed and fabricated with a burst pressure of not less than six times its charged pressure at 21 °C (70 °F) when shipped;
(iii) Each fire extinguisher must be tested, without evidence of failure or damage, to at least three times its charged pressure at 21 °C (70 °F) but not less than 825 kPa (120 psig) before initial shipment, and must be marked to indicate the year of the test (within 90 days of the actual date of the original test) and with the words “MEETS DOT REQUIREMENTS.” This marking is considered a certification that the fire extinguisher is manufactured in accordance with the requirements of this section. The words “This extinguisher meets all requirements of 49 CFR 173.306” may be displayed on fire extinguishers manufactured prior to January 1, 1976; and
(iv) For any subsequent shipment, each fire extinguisher must be in compliance with the retest requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations of the Department of Labor, 29 CFR 1910.157;
(4) Specification 2P or 2Q (§§ 178.33 and 178.33a of this subchapter) inner non-refillable metal packagings are authorized as fire extinguishers subject to the following conditions:
(i) The liquid portion of the gas plus any additional liquid or solid may not completely fill the packaging at 55 °C (130 °F);
(ii) Pressure in the packaging must not exceed 1250 kPa (181 psig) at 55 °C (130 °F). If the pressure exceeds 920 kPa (141 psig) at 55 °C (130 °F), but does not exceed 1100 kPa (160 psig) at 55 °C (130 °F), a specification DOT 2P inner metal packaging must be used; if the pressure exceeds 1100 kPa (160 psig) at 55 °C (130 °F), a specification DOT 2Q inner metal packaging must be used. The metal packaging must be capable of withstanding, without bursting, a pressure of one and one-half times the equilibrium pressure of the contents at 55 °C (130 °F); and
(iii) Each completed inner packaging filled for shipment must have been heated until the pressure in the container is equivalent to the equilibrium pressure of the contents at 55 °C (130 °F) without evidence of leakage, distortion, or other defect.
(iv) Specification 2P and 2Q cylinders must be packed in strong non-bulk outer packagings. The outside of the combination packaging must be marked with an indication that the inner packagings conform to the prescribed specifications.
26. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 44701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.53.
27. In § 175.10, paragraph (a)(17) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(17) A wheelchair or other mobility aid equipped with a lithium ion battery, when carried as checked baggage, provided—
(i) The lithium ion battery must be of a type that successfully passed each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria (IBR; see § 171.7 of this subchapter), as specified in § 173.185 of this subchapter, unless approved by the Associate Administrator;
(ii) The operator must verify that:
(A) Visual inspection of the wheelchair or other mobility aid reveals no obvious defects;
(B) Battery terminals are protected from short circuits (e.g., enclosed within a battery housing);
(C) The battery must be securely attached to the mobility aid; and
(D) Electrical circuits are isolated;
(iii) The wheelchair or other mobility aid must be loaded and stowed in such a manner to prevent its unintentional activation and its battery must be protected from short circuiting;
(iv) The wheelchair or other mobility aid must be protected from damage by the movement of baggage, mail, service items, or other cargo;
(v) Where a lithium ion battery-powered wheelchair or other mobility aid is specifically designed to allow its battery to be removed by the user (e.g., collapsible):
(A) The battery must be removed from the wheelchair or other mobility aid according to instructions provided by the wheelchair or other mobility aid owner or its manufacturer;
(B) The battery must be carried in carry-on baggage only;
(C) Battery terminals must be protected from short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or otherwise insulating the terminal e.g. by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch);
(D) The battery must not exceed 25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content; and
(E) A maximum of one spare battery not exceeding 25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content or two spares not exceeding 13.5 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content each may be carried;
(vi) The pilot-in-command is advised either orally or in writing, prior to departure, as to the location of the lithium ion battery or batteries aboard the aircraft.
28. The authority citation for part 176 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.53.
29. In § 176.905, paragraph (i) is revised to read as follows:
(i) Exceptions—A vehicle or mechanical equipment is excepted from the requirements of this subchapter if any of the following are met:
(1) The vehicle or mechanical equipment has an internal combustion engine using liquid fuel that has a flashpoint less than 38°C (100°F), the fuel tank is empty, and the engine is run until it stalls for lack of fuel;
(2) The vehicle or mechanical equipment has an internal combustion engine using liquid fuel that has a flashpoint of 38°C (100°F) or higher, the fuel tank contains 418 L (110 gallons) of fuel or less, and there are no fuel leaks in any portion of the fuel system;
(3) The vehicle or mechanical equipment is stowed in a hold or compartment designated by the administration of the country in which the vessel is registered as specially designed and approved for vehicles and mechanical equipment and there are no signs of leakage from the battery, engine, fuel cell, compressed gas cylinder or accumulator, or fuel tank, as appropriate. For vehicles with batteries connected and fuel tanks containing gasoline transported by U.S. vessels,
(4) The vehicle or mechanical equipment is electrically powered solely by wet electric storage batteries (including nonspillable batteries) or sodium batteries; or
(5) The vehicle or mechanical equipment is equipped with liquefied petroleum gas or other compressed gas fuel tanks, the tanks are completely emptied of liquefied or compressed gas and the positive pressure in the tank does not exceed 2 bar (29 psig), the line from the fuel tank to the regulator and the regulator itself is drained of all traces of liquefied or compressed gas, and the fuel shut-off valve is closed.
30. The authority citation for part 178 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.53.
31. In § 178.2, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Retain copies of each written notification for at least one year from date of issuance; and
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice of Public Meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States to consider proposed recommendations which deal with: (1) Regulatory analysis requirements, (2) midnight rules, (3) immigration removal adjudication, (4) the Paperwork Reduction Act, and (5) improving coordination of related agency responsibilities. To facilitate public participation, the Conference is inviting public comment on the recommendations that will be considered at the meeting.
Meeting dates are Thursday, June 14, 2012, 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Comments on the recommendations must be received by noon, Friday, June 8, 2012.
The Public Meeting will be held at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 (Main Conference Room).
Submit comments to either of the following: Email
Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel (the Designated Federal Officer), Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202–480–2088.
The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to administrative agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of Federal administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The objectives of these recommendations are to ensure that private rights may be fully protected and regulatory activities and other Federal responsibilities may be carried out expeditiously in the public interest, to promote more effective public participation and efficiency in the rulemaking process, reduce unnecessary litigation in the regulatory process, improve the use of science in the regulatory process, and improve the effectiveness of laws applicable to the regulatory process (5 U.S.C. 591).
The membership of the Conference meeting in plenary session constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595). The Assembly will meet in plenary session to consider five proposed recommendations:
(1) The recommendation “Regulatory Analysis Requirements” addresses the issue of agencies having to comply with numerous regulatory analysis requirements created by statute and executive orders. The recommendation is supported by an extensive report which includes an appendix charting all of the regulatory analysis requirements of the 100 significant rules subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review in 2010. The goal of the recommendation is to ensure agencies fulfill the regulatory analysis requirements efficiently, and to enhance the transparency of the process. Agencies, the Congress, the President and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB are all encouraged to play a role in achieving this goal.
(2) The recommendation “Midnight Rules” addresses several issues raised by the publication of rules in the final months of a presidential administration and offers proposals for limiting the practice by incumbent administrations and enhancing the powers of incoming administrations to review midnight rules.
(3) The recommendation “Immigration Removal Adjudication” addresses the problem of case backlogs in immigration removals, and offers nearly 40 suggestions on ways to enhance efficiency and fairness in these cases.
(4) The recommendation “Paperwork Reduction Act” (PRA or the Act) addresses a variety of issues that have arisen since the Act was last revised in 1995. For instance, despite OMB guidance on the application of the PRA to social media, the Act does not yet account for new technologies. The proposal offers suggestions for improving public engagement in the review of information collection requests and for making the process more efficient for the agencies and OMB.
(5) The recommendation “Improving Coordination of Related Agency Responsibilities” addresses the problem of overlapping and fragmented procedures associated with assigning multiple agencies similar or related functions, or dividing authority among agencies. The underlying report was based on a 2012
This meeting will be open to the public and may end prior to the designated end time if business is concluded earlier. Members of the public are invited to attend the meeting in person, subject to space limitations. The Conference will provide live, remote public access to the meeting via webcast at
Members of the public may submit written comments on any or all of the recommendations to either of the addresses listed above no later than noon, June 8, 2012. Copies of the proposed recommendations, accompanying research reports and information on remote access will be available at
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
If the data is not collected, FNS would not be able to properly monitor program funding and program trends.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the National Poultry Improvement Plan.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 24, 2012.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on regulations for the National Poultry Improvement Plan, contact Dr. Charles Roney, NPIP Coordinator, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 300, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922–3496. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
In administering the Plan, APHIS requires a number of information activities and forms, including VS Forms 1–23/1–23A, Appraisal and Indemnity Claim for Animals Destroyed or Materials Destroyed/Continuation Sheet; VS Form 9–3, Report of Sales of Hatching Eggs, Chicks, and Poults; VS Form 9–4, Summary of Breeding, Flock, Table-Egg Layer Flocks, Meat-Type Chicken and Turkey Slaughter Plants Participation; VS Form 9–5, Report of Hatcheries, Dealers, and Independent Flocks, Table-Egg Producers, Meat-Type Chicken and Turkey Slaughter Plants Participating in the NPIP; VS Form 9–6, Report of Salmonella Isolations to NPIP Official State Agencies; VS Form 9–7, Investigation of Salmonella Isolations in Poultry; VS Form 9–8, Flock Inspection and Check Testing Report; VS Form 9–9, Hatchery Inspection Form; VS Form 10–3, Request for Salmonella Serotyping; banding of sentinel birds for identification prior to flock vaccination; memorandums of understanding;
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of an extension to an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from specified regions.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 24, 2012.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from specified regions into the United States, contact Dr. Magde Elshafie, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services—Animal Products, NCIE, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–3332. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
In part 94, § 94.26 allows the importation, subject to certain conditions, of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from certain regions, including Argentina and the Mexican States of Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Yucatan, that are free of exotic Newcastle disease (END). The conditions for importation require, among other things, certification from a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the exporting region that poultry and poultry products exported from one of these regions originated in that region (or in another region recognized by APHIS as free of END) and that before the export to the United States, the poultry and poultry products were not commingled with poultry and poultry products from regions where END exists.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of commercial shipments of fresh papaya from Colombia and Ecuador into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 24, 2012.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on regulations for the importation of commercial shipments of fresh papaya from Colombia and Ecuador, contact Ms. Dorothy Wayson, Regulatory Coordination Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2036. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
Under these regulations, commercial shipments of fresh papaya from Colombia and Ecuador are subject to certain conditions before entering the continental United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations include requirements for approved production locations; field sanitation; hot water treatment; procedures for packing and shipping the papayas; and fruit fly trapping in papaya production areas. In order to document that these requirements have been met, the regulations require the use of phytosanitary certificates and recordkeeping.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Economic Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations, this notice announces the Economic Research Service's (ERS) intention to request renewal of approval for an annual information collection on supplemental food security questions in the Current Population Survey (CPS), commencing with the December 2013 survey. These data will be used: to monitor household-level food security and food insecurity in the United States; to assess food security and changes in food security for population subgroups; to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs; to improve the measurement of food security; and to provide information to aid in public policy decision making.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 24, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Mark Nord, Food Assistance Branch, Food Economics Division, Economic Research Service, Room 5–232, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC 20050–1800. Submit electronic comments to
Mark Nord at the address in the preamble. Tel. 202–694–5433.
ERS is responsible for conducting studies and evaluations of the Nation's food and nutrition assistance programs that are administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Department currently spends about $103 billion each year to ensure access to nutritious, healthful diets for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Service administers the 15 food assistance programs of the USDA including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly called the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). These programs, which serve 1 in 4 Americans, represent our Nation's commitment to the principle that no one in our country should lack the food needed for an active, healthy life. They provide a safety net to people in need. The programs' goals are to provide needy persons with access to a more nutritious diet, to improve the eating habits of the Nation's children, and to help America's farmers by providing an outlet for the distribution of food purchased under farmer assistance authorities.
The data collected by the food security supplement will be used to monitor the prevalence of food security and the prevalence and severity of food insecurity among the Nation's households. The prevalence of these conditions as well as year-to-year trends in their prevalence will be estimated at the national level and for population subgroups. The data will also be used to monitor the amounts that households spend for food and their use of community food pantries and emergency kitchens. These statistics along with research based on the data will be used to identify the causes and consequences of food insecurity, and to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs. The data will also be used to improve the measurement of food security and to develop measures of additional aspects and dimensions of food security. This consistent measurement of the extent and severity of food insecurity will aid in policy decision-making.
The supplemental survey instrument was developed in conjunction with food security experts nationwide as well as survey method experts within the Census Bureau and was reviewed in 2006 by the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council. This supplemental information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular monthly CPS interviewing. Interviews will be conducted using Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) and Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) methods.
Legislative authority for the planned data collection are 7 U.S.C. 2204(a) and 7 U.S.C. 2026(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. This latter section authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with private and public institutions to collect data to undertake research that would improve the administration and effectiveness of the SNAP in delivering nutrition-related benefits.
Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provided for in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture.
This notice lists the updated quantity trigger levels for products which may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. This notice also includes the relevant period applicable for the trigger levels on each of the listed products.
Safeguard Staff, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1021, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250–1021; or by telephone at (202) 720–0638, or by email at
Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tariffication as a result of the Uruguay Round, if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986–88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties to be imposed if the volume of imports of an article exceeds the average of the most recent 3 years for which data are available by 5, 10, or 25 percent, depending on the article. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article.
Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the
Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2012) and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Uruguay Round Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels, published in the
As provided in Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, consistent with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the safeguard quantity trigger levels previously notified are superceded by the levels indicated in the Annex to this notice. The definitions of these products were provided in the Notice of Safeguard Action published in the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension with revision of a currently approved information collection, Special Use Administration.
Comments must be received in writing on or before July 24, 2012 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to USDA Forest Service, Attn: Lands, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mailstop Code: 1124, Washington, DC 20250–1124.
Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 202–205–1604 or by email to:
The public may inspect comments received at the Office of the Director, Lands, 4th Floor South, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 205–205–1248 to facilitate entry to the building.
Milo Booth, Lands, at 202–205–1117. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
In addition, the Department of the Interior (DOI) statutes for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) along with the statute for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) authorize its collection of information and will utilize form SF–299 “Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands.”
Several statutes authorize the Forest Service to issue and administer authorizations for use and occupancy of NFS lands and collect information from the public for those purposes. The laws authorizing the collection of this information include the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551); Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1761–1771); Act of March 4, 1915 (16 U.S.C. 497); Alaska Term Permit Act of March 30, 1948 (48 U.S.C. 341); Act of September 3, 1954 (68 Stat. 1146; 43 U.S.C. 931c, 931d); National Forest Ski Area Permit Act (16 U.S.C. 497b); section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185); National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA, 16 U.S.C. 532–538); section 7 of the Granger-Thye Act (16 U.S.C. 480d); Act of May 26, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460
Forest Service regulations implementing these authorities, found at 36 CFR part 251, Subpart B, contain information collection requirements, including submission of applications, execution of forms, and imposition of terms and conditions that entail information collection requirements, such as the requirement to submit annual financial information, to prepare and update an operating plan; to prepare and update a maintenance plan, and to submit compliance reports and information updates.
The information helps the Agency identify the environmental and social impacts of special uses for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and program administration. In addition, the Agency uses the information to ascertain whether the land use fee(s) charged for special use authorizations are based on market value.
Information collection occurs via application forms, as well as terms and conditions in special use authorizations and operating plans. There are six categories of information collected:
(1) Information required from proponents and applicants to evaluate proposals and applications to use or occupy NFS lands,
(2) Information required from applicants to complete special use authorizations,
(3) Annual financial information required from holders to determine land use fees,
(4) Information required from holders to prepare and update operating plans,
(5) Information required from holders to prepare and update maintenance plans, and
(6) Information required from holders to complete compliance reports and informational updates.
The six categories cover all information collection requirements involved in administration of the Special Uses program, including application and reporting forms; authorization forms; supplemental special use authorization clauses in Forest Service Handbook 2709.11,
These six categories demonstrate the complexity of the special uses program and the importance of standard forms in administration of the program. Special use authorizations encompass a variety of activities ranging from individual private uses to large-scale commercial facilities and public services. Examples of authorized special uses include public and private road rights-of-way, apiaries, domestic water supply conveyance systems, telephone and electric service rights-of-way, oil and gas pipeline rights-of-way, communications facilities, hydroelectric power-generating facilities, ski areas, resorts, marinas, municipal sewage treatment plants, and public parks and playgrounds.
1. SF–299,
2. IRS form W–9,
3. FS–2300–43,
4. FS–2700–3a,
5. FS–2700–3b,
6. FS–2700–3c,
7. FS–2700–3f,
8. FS–2700–10,
9. FS–2700–11,
10. FS–2700–12,
11. FS–2700–30,
12. FS–2700–33,
13. FS–2700–34,
14. FS–2700–36 (new),
15. FS–6500–24,
16. FS–6500–25,
17.
1. FS–2700–4,
2. FS–2700–4b,
3. FS–2700–4c,
4. FS–2700–4d,
5. FS–2700–4h,
6. FS–2700–4h—Appendix B,
7. FS–2700–4h—Appendix F,
8. FS–2700–4h—Appendix G,
9. FS–2700–4i,
10. FS–2700–4j,
11. FS–2700–4–Shawnee,
12. FS–2700–5,
13. FS–2700–5a,
14. Grand Island–FS–2700–5a (new),
15. FS–2700–5b,
16. FS–2700–5c,
17. FS–2700–5d,
18. FS–2700–9a,
19. FS–2700–9b,
20. FS–2700–9c,
21. FS–2700–9d,
22. FS–2700–9e,
23. FS–2700–9f,
24. FS–2700–9g,
25. FS–2700–9h,
26. FS–2700–10b,
27. FS–2700–10c (new),
28. FS–2700–23,
29. FS–2700–25,
30. FS–2700–26,
31. FS–2700–26b,
32. FS–2700–27,
33. FS–2700–31,
34. FS–2700–32,
1. FS–2700–6b,
2. FS–2700–7,
3. FS–2700–8,
4. FS–2700–10a,
5. FS–2700–19,
6. FS–2700–19a,
7. Form number to be determined (new),
8.
Special use authorizations may contain a clause requiring the holder to prepare and update an operating plan that governs day-to-day operations of the authorized use. This information is useful to the holder and the Forest Service, because it specifies procedures and policies for conducting the authorized use. Typically, operating plans contain daily operating guidelines, fire abatement and control procedures, monitoring guidelines, maintenance standards, safety and emergency plans, and inspection standards. Operating plans are usually necessary for complex operations, commercial uses, and uses conducted in environmentally sensitive areas.
A permit or easement issued under FLPMA or FRTA may require the holder or grantee to submit and update a road maintenance plan or information necessary for the preparation of a road maintenance plan. A road maintenance plan governs the responsibility of the holder or grantee to perform or pay for maintenance of an NFS road.
1. FS–2700–1,
2.
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice of Renewal of the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is seeking renewal of the 2-year charter for its discretionary committee, the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics.
The Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics was originally established by the Secretary of Commerce on July 16, 1962. The Committee is also established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
Hubert H. Hamer, Chairperson, Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 690–8141, or email
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA policies will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership will include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women and persons with disabilities.
The USDA prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program.
More information can be found about the Committee's recent activities at:
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects.
Notice of Adoption of Final Policy.
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Debra Dickson, Director of Administration, Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects,
Congress enacted the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act in 2004 (15 U.S.C. 720) to encourage construction of a pipeline to deliver natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to the Lower 48 states. The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act establishes a new process for approval and construction of the pipeline, either a project that completes the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System that President Carter approved in 1977 pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 719), or a different pipeline project under the Natural Gas Act. The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 created the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects and charged the Federal Coordinator, the agency head, with four primary responsibilities: (1) Coordinate the expeditious discharge of all activities by all federal agencies with respect to an Alaska natural gas pipeline; (2) Ensure that all federal agencies comply with the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act; (3) Prohibit federal agencies from imposing permit conditions that would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project unless the conditions are required by law; further, the act directs the Federal Coordinator to determine whether a term or condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project; and (4) Participate with the state of Alaska in a joint construction surveillance and monitoring agreement.
In addition, Congress transferred to the Federal Coordinator all of the responsibilities and authorities of the Federal Inspector under the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976. These responsibilities will be applicable if the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System gas line is completed or if the 1980s' prebuilt sections of that project are expanded or modified within the United States to handle Alaska gas.
This policy addresses the third of the four statutory requirements listed above by explaining how the Federal Coordinator will determine whether conditions that federal agencies intend to impose on permits, rights-of-way or other authorizations for an Alaska natural gas transportation project will prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project.
Several sections of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act require the Federal Coordinator to consider permit conditions imposed by federal agencies with respect to the pipeline. Section 106(d)(2), Public Law 108–324, 118 Stat. 1255 prohibits agencies from including certain conditions in permits and other approvals, it states:
(2) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS—No Federal agency may include in any certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, or other authorization issued to an Alaska natural gas transportation project any term or condition that may be permitted, but is not required, by any applicable law if the Federal Coordinator determines that the term or condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation, or an expansion, of the Alaska natural gas transportation project.
Thus, the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 prohibits conditions that may be included but are not required by any applicable law if the Federal Coordinator determines that the condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation, or an expansion, of the Alaska natural gas transportation project. The Federal Coordinator's function with regard to some conditions is limited. The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, Division C, Section 106(d)(4), Public Law 108–324 denies the Federal Coordinator any authority to override the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's implementation of open seasons for the project or the Commission's orders for expansion of the project under Section 105 of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, or to add or impose any terms or conditions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate or any agency's permit or other authorization for the project. Division C, Section 106(d)(4), Public Law 108–324 states:
(4) LIMITATION—The Federal Coordinator shall not have authority to—
(A) override—
(i) the implementation or enforcement of regulations issued by the Commission under section 103; or
(ii) an order by the Commission to expand the project under section 105; or
(B) impose any terms, conditions, or requirements in addition to those imposed by the Commission or any agency with respect to construction and operation, or an expansion of, the project.
The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act also prohibits federal agencies from amending any previously issued permit or authorization to add conditions determined by the Federal Coordinator to prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the pipeline.
(3) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS—Unless required by law, no Federal agency shall add to, amend, or abrogate any certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, or other authorization issued to an Alaska natural gas transportation project if the Federal Coordinator determines that the action would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation, or an expansion, of the Alaska natural gas transportation project. ANGPA § 106(d)(3).
The prohibition of permit conditions that would prevent or impair expeditious construction and operation does not apply to conditions adopted by state agencies, even those issued pursuant to programs encouraged or funded by the federal government. However, if a state-issued permit includes a condition which is incorporated into a federal permit by a federal agency, the Federal Coordinator may review the condition that the federal agency adopted. Any determination the Federal Coordinator makes would not affect the state condition, just the applicability of the federal permit condition.
The Office of the Federal Coordinator is implementing these provisions of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 by policy, establishing the process by which the Federal Coordinator will exercise its responsibility to determine whether permit conditions would prevent or impair expeditious construction of the project. This policy will apply to the agency's review of conditions initially included in an authorization for an Alaska natural gas transportation project, as well as any renewal or reissuance of authorizations.
One commenter suggested that the policy include a statement of the legal authority on which it is based. We have expanded the introduction to the policy to include this information.
It is the Federal Coordinator's intention to work closely with other federal agencies before, during and after the National Environmental Policy Act process and during the permit application review process of each agency in order to identify the likely need for permit conditions early and to determine as soon as possible whether a particular permit condition would be consistent with the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act's statutory prohibition. The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects expects that through coordination with other federal agencies and the permit applicant, it should be able to resolve concerns about most terms and conditions early and either avoid a formal review process or conclude it expeditiously.
(1)
One commenter suggested that Federal Coordinator should not exclude from its review terms or conditions suggested by or agreed to by the project applicant, stating that the project applicant may not have the same interest as the United States in expeditious completion of the gas pipeline. The Office of the Federal Coordinator believes it is highly unlikely that an applicant will not want expeditious construction of the project. Besides, if the applicant and an agency mutually agree on a particular term or condition, and that term or condition is part of the application, it could not be considered as imposed by an agency on a project authorization. The Office of the Federal Coordinator's review only relates to permit conditions imposed by federal agencies.
(2)
One commenter believed the proposed policy was too narrow because it used the term “permit” to include any permit, right-of-way or other authorization. It was the Office of the Federal Coordinator's intention to include any kind of authorization in its review, not only permits. To clarify this, we are changing the policy to define the term “authorization” and defining that term to encompass any permit, right-of-way, lease or other authorization required for an Alaska natural gas transportation project.
One commenter suggested that authorizations which would assist but are not essential for an Alaska natural gas transportation project should nonetheless be subject to review. The Federal Coordinator disagrees. Congress granted the Federal Coordinator limited authority to review permit conditions that might prevent or delay expeditious construction and operation of the project. If an authorization is not required for the project, any condition imposed on that authorization is unlikely to prevent or delay expeditious construction or operation of the project.
(3)
(4)
The Federal Coordinator does not intend to review every condition on every permit. Rather, the agency will generally review permit conditions at the request of the applicant or permittee. In addition, the Office of the Federal Coordinator reserves the right to select conditions for review on its own initiative. When the permitting agency's practice or regulations allow that agency or the Office of the Federal Coordinator to share a draft permit condition with an applicant, the Office of the Federal Coordinator will work with the applicant and the agency as early as possible to identify problematic permit conditions. An applicant may request review of a permit condition by the Office of the Federal Coordinator prior to issuance if the applicant believes it may prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project. If the practice of the permitting agency does not allow draft permit conditions to be shared with an applicant, the permittee will have to wait to request review of a permit condition until after the permit is issued.
One commenter suggested that the policy include a procedure for federal agencies other than the Federal Coordinator to request a review of proposed conditions before issuing a project authorization. The Federal Coordinator has not adopted this suggestion. The Office of the Federal Coordinator will work with other agencies during the permitting process. If an agency chooses to share possible permit conditions with the Office of the Federal Coordinator in advance of issuing its permit, the office will provide guidance on how to avoid problems. It is not the Federal Coordinator's intention to provide a formal review before issuance. However, if an early formal determination is sought, the Federal Coordinator will make every effort to provide effective guidance to an agency.
Requests from the applicant or the permittee for review of permit conditions should specify what specific condition will prevent or impair expeditious construction and operation of the project and should explain why the condition will have a detrimental impact on the project.
The Office of the Federal Coordinator will need background information from the agency in order to conduct its review, including:
(1) The language of the specific condition.
(2) A citation to the legal requirement for the condition.
(3) Any analysis the agency has prepared of the cost of implementing the condition.
(4) Any other information that explains the agency's reasons to include the condition, especially the circumstances that require its inclusion. This should include any discussion of the benefits of the conditions, or a cost-benefit analysis if one has been prepared.
(5) If the permit has not been issued, a statement addressing whether it is permissible under the agency's practice to share the draft condition with the applicant.
The Office of the Federal Coordinator expects this information should be readily available from the agency and will not impose a burden on the agency, as the agency should have already documented the need for the condition as part of the administrative record. Accordingly, the Office of the Federal Coordinator anticipates that the agency will be able to provide this information within ten (10) calendar days of Office of the Federal Coordinator's notification of a review and request for additional information.
One commenter suggested that the Federal Coordinator reserve the right to deny an application for review due to a lack of adequate information, if it is frivolous, or for any other cause. If the request for review is incomplete, does not demonstrate merit or otherwise does not provide a basis for relief, the Federal Coordinator does not need supplemental reasons for denying relief.
Based on Office of the Federal Coordinator's review of the proposed condition, the Federal Coordinator will determine whether the condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project. In most cases, the Office of the Federal Coordinator's review should be completed in less than thirty (30) days after a project applicant requests a review. The Federal Coordinator will provide notice of its decision and reasoning to the applicant and the agency. If the Federal Coordinator determines that the condition or proposed condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project, the Office of the Federal Coordinator will facilitate a meeting between the permittee or applicant and the issuing agency and, if appropriate, other experts, in order to help resolve the issue.
A commenter suggested including a statement to the effect that the permit condition review policy was intended to reduce litigation and that it did not create any legal rights. The Office of the Federal Coordinator disagrees with such an addition to this policy. If the Federal Coordinator determines that a permit condition will prevent or impair expeditious construction of the project, that determination creates the right for the applicant to seek a judicial ruling that the condition is unenforceable if it is not required by law. Accordingly, the Federal Coordinator will not adopt this suggestion.
The purpose of this policy is to explain how the Office of the Federal Coordinator will exercise its responsibilities with respect to review of permit conditions under Section 106(d) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15 U.S.C. 720(d)(d)). Section 106(a) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15 U.S.C. 720(d)(a)) established the Office of the Federal Coordinator as an independent office in the executive branch. The Federal Coordinator also exercises authorities under the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act (15 U.S.C. 719), and this policy is adopted in order to implement those responsibilities as well. This policy applies to the issuance of initial permits, as well as the renewal or reissuance of permits for an Alaska natural gas transportation project.
It is the Federal Coordinator's intention to work closely with other federal agencies before, during and after the National Environmental Policy Act process for an Alaska natural gas pipeline project and also during the permit application review process of each agency in order to identify early the likely need for permit conditions and to determine as soon as possible whether a particular permit condition would be precluded by the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act's statutory prohibition. The Federal Coordinator expects that through coordination with other federal agencies and the permit applicant, it should be able to resolve concerns about most terms and conditions early on and either avoid a formal review process or conclude it expeditiously.
(a) Term or condition in Section 106(d)(2) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act—referred to in this policy as condition—means any obligation not proposed by the applicant but proposed to be added to the permit or authorization by a federal agency. This includes all terms, stipulations, conditions or additions to the application and any other requirement imposed by an agency. It excludes any obligation included by the applicant in its application, even if the obligation is suggested by an agency.
(b) Authorization means certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease or any other authorization required in order to construct or operate an Alaska natural gas transportation project.
(1) An applicant for any authorization or a permittee for any authorization for an Alaska natural gas transportation project may request the Federal Coordinator to review any condition included in or proposed for inclusion in the authorization.
(2) Such requests must be made to the Federal Coordinator no later than 30 days after issuance.
(3) The request shall include a specific identification of each condition which the applicant or permittee believes is inconsistent with the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act and an explanation of the basis of that belief, including information that supports the contention that the permit condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project.
(4) The Federal Coordinator may review a permit condition even if the permittee has not requested review.
If the Federal Coordinator receives a request for review of any condition, the Federal Coordinator will notify the issuing agency of the request. The Federal Coordinator will need the following information from the agency:
(1) The language of the specific condition.
(2) A citation to the legal requirement for the condition.
(3) Any analysis the agency has prepared of the cost of implementing the condition.
(4) Any other information that explains the agency's reasons to include the condition, especially the circumstances that require its inclusion. This should include any discussion of the benefits of the conditions, or a cost-benefit analysis if one has been prepared.
(5) If the permit has not yet been issued, a statement addressing whether agency practice or regulations would allow the Office of the Federal Coordinator to discuss the proposed condition with the applicant.
In determining whether a proposed permit condition would prevent or impair expeditious construction and operation of the project, the Federal Coordinator will consider:
(1) Any delays in project construction and operation caused by the condition.
(2) All other available information, including, if available, the project's cost of meeting the condition.
(3) The statutory and regulatory basis for the condition, as provided by the issuing agency.
(4) The views of the applicant.
(1) The Federal Coordinator will determine whether the proposed condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of an Alaska natural gas transportation project or expansion of that project. The Federal Coordinator's decision will be sent to the agency and the applicant or permittee.
(2) If the Federal Coordinator determines that the condition or proposed condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project, the Federal Coordinator will facilitate a meeting between the permittee or applicant and the issuing agency and, if appropriate, other experts, in order to help resolve the issue.
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 exit questionnaires are the instruments we use to collect turnover data from a sample of former current survey interviewers (field representatives) and decennial census interviewers (enumerators and listers). The goal or purpose of the exit questionnaires is to determine the reasons for interviewer turnover and what the Census Bureau might have done, or can do, to influence interviewers not to leave. Thus the exit questionnaires seek reasons interviewers quit, inquire about motivational factors that would have kept interviewers from leaving, attempt to identify training program strengths and weaknesses and their impacts on turnover, and explore the impact of pay, working conditions and supervisory styles on employees' reasons for quitting.
As the environment in which surveys take place, the demographics of our labor force and the way surveys are conducted continues to change, it is important that we continue to examine the interviewers' concerns about their job. Information provided by respondents to the exit questionnaire provides insight on the measures the Census Bureau might take to decrease turnover, and is useful in helping us determine if the reasons for interviewer turnover appear to be systemic or localized. The exit questionnaires have shown to be useful and, therefore, we believe it is important to continue to use them to affect program planning and management.
Forms BC–1294 and the BC–1294(D) are the instruments we currently use to collect turnover data from a sample of former current survey interviewers, and decennial census listers/enumerators, respectively.
This submission includes changes to the BC–1294, which reflect Census Bureau policy and procedural changes to current surveys since the last request for clearance. This submission does not include changes to the BC–1294(D). We are dropping the BC–1294(CM), Coverage Measurement Exit Questionnaire, from this clearance.
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 (
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).
Estimates from the SAS are essential to a better understanding and higher quality estimates of economic growth, real output, prices, and productivity for our nation's economy. A broad spectrum of government and private stakeholders use these estimates in analyzing business and economic sectors; developing statistics on services; forecasting economic growth; and compiling data on productivity, prices and gross domestic product (GDP). In addition, trade and professional organizations use these estimates to analyze industry trends, benchmark their own statistical programs and develop forecasts. Private businesses use these estimates to measure market share, analyze business potential and plan investments. Comprehensive, comparative annual data on the services sector are not available from any other source.
Annually, the key variables for the SAS are total revenue, total expenses, and general expense detail items. Some sectors also collect revenue detail items that are specific to a particular industry. The availability of these data greatly improves the quality of the intermediate-inputs and value-added estimates in BEA's annual input-output and GDP by industry accounts.
In 2011 we selected a new sample for this survey. During the first year of the new sample, we will ask for two years of data (2010 and 2011). Current- and previous-year data are requested only for the first year in which a new sample is introduced in order to provide a link point with the existing data series. In subsequent years, only current year data will be requested. Additionally, as a result of feedback given by respondents, we have created separate forms for alpha multi-unit companies. The new alpha forms exclude Question #2 (EIN verification) which is only necessary for EIN respondents.
The estimates produced in the SAS are critical to the accurate measurement of total economic activity.
• The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the primary Federal user, use the estimates to develop the national income and product accounts, compile benchmark and annual input-output tables, and compute GDP by industry.
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) use the estimates as inputs to its Producer Price Indexes and in developing productivity measurements.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use the estimates for program planning and development of the National Health Expenditure Accounts.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) use the estimates to assess the impact of regulatory policies.
• International agencies use the estimates to compare total domestic output to changing international activity.
• Private industry also use the estimates as a tool for marketing analysis.
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 (
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Port of Milwaukee, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 41, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a general-purpose zone project. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u) and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on May 21, 2012.
FTZ 41 was approved by the Board on September 29, 1978 (Board Order 136, 43 FR 46887, 10/11/1978) and expanded on August 4, 1981 (Board Order 178, 46 FR 40718, 8/11/1981), October 18, 1985 (Board Order 315, 50 FR 43749, 10/29/1985), May 27, 1993 (Board Order 641, 58 FR 32512, 6/10/1993), September 4, 1994 (Board Order 694, 59 FR 47115, 9/14/1994) and April 29, 1996 (Board Order 818, 61 FR 21157, 5/9/1996). On August 31, 2011, an application was approved by the FTZ Board to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) (Board Order 1780). FTZ 41's service area includes Kenosha, Milwaukee and Racine Counties, Wisconsin.
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Dodge, Fond du Lac, Jefferson, Ozaukee, Rock, Sheboygan, Walworth, Washington and Waukesha Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on
The applicant is also requesting approval of the following temporary sites as “usage-driven” sites: Site 12 (113.4 acres)—Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, 5485 County Road “V”, Sheboygan Falls, Sheboygan County; and, Site 13 (15.1 acres)—Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, 215 S. Park Street, Port Washington, Ozaukee County.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 24, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 8, 2012.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves, grantee of FTZ 36, requesting authority to reorganize and expand the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a general-purpose zone project. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on May 22, 2012.
FTZ 36 was approved by the Board on May 4, 1978 (Board Order 129, 43 FR 20525, 5/12/78), and expanded on August 27, 2004 (Board Order 1348, 69 FR 53887, 9/3/04). On February 22, 2000, the grant of authority was reissued to the Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves (Board Order 1080, 65 FR 11548–11549, 3/3/00).
The current zone project includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Galveston County, Texas, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Houston Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize and expand its existing zone project as follows: restore 76 acres at Site 2 (new acreage—972 acres); Sites 1, 2 (as modified) and 3 would become “magnet” sites; and, Sites 4, 5 and 6 would become “usage-driven” sites. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. The application would have no impact on FTZ 36's previously authorized subzones.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 24, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 8, 2012.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
The rebuttal period for the application to expand the scope of manufacturing authority approved within Subzone 45F on behalf of Epson Portland, Inc., in Hillsboro, Oregon, submitted by the Port of Portland (77 FR 4006–4007, 1/26/2012, 77 FR 21082, 4/9/2012 and 77 FR 26252, 5/3/2012), is being extended based on a request from the applicant to July 23, 2012, to allow additional time for the submission of rebuttal comments. Rebuttal comments (original and one electronic copy) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230 and
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (“solar cells”), from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice.
Howard Smith, Jeffrey Pedersen, Krisha Hill, or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5193, (202) 482–2769, (202) 482–4037, or (202) 482–4406, respectively.
On October 19, 2011, the Department received a petition concerning imports of solar cells from the PRC filed in proper form by SolarWorld Industries America Inc. (“Petitioner”).
In the
In the
In November 2011, CNPV Dongying Solar Power Company Limited (“CNPV”), Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited and Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. (“Yingli”), Jiangsu Green Power PV Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu”), and Trina Solar requested to be treated as voluntary respondents in this investigation.
On March 8, 2012, the Department again addressed the matter of voluntary respondents. Specifically, the Department determined that CNPV and Jiangsu did not submit responses to the Department's AD questionnaire and thus they did not qualify as voluntary respondents. Furthermore, the Department continued to find that, given its existing resources and the complexity of the case, examining Yingli as a voluntary respondent would be unduly burdensome and inhibit the timely completion of the investigation. Therefore, the Department stated that it did not intend to calculate an individual weighted average dumping margin for Yingli.
On December 5, 2011, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) preliminary determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from the PRC of solar cells.
In the
On January 24, 2012, the Department identified potential surrogate countries for use in the investigation and invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country and surrogate value selection.
On February 13, 2012, Petitioner alleged that Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar engaged in targeted dumping. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged, based on trade statistics since August 2010 and prior knowledge of an impending trade case, that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports of solar cells from the PRC. Based on this allegation, the Department requested, and Trina Solar and Wuxi Suntech supplied, shipment information regarding the merchandise under consideration for the periods May 2009 through March 2012 and May 2009 through April 2012, respectively. From November 2011 through April 2012, interested parties submitted comments regarding Petitioner's allegation of critical circumstances.
On March 2, 2012, Petitioner made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 30-day postponement of the preliminary determination.
In April and May 2012, Petitioner, Yingli, Canadian Solar, Inc., and Trina Solar filed comments for the Department to consider in its preliminary determination. Interested parties also submitted factors of production (“FOP”) data from February to May 2012.
The POI is April 1, 2011, through September 30, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month in which the petition was filed, October 2011.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in the PRC are covered by this investigation; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by this investigation.
Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000.
In November and December 2011, parties submitted comments to the Department regarding the scope of the AD and CVD investigations of solar cells. One party requested that the scope exclude monocrystalline solar panels for the recreational vehicle industry. Petitioner opposed this request. Another party requested that the scope exclude off-grid modules. Several respondents jointly requested that the Department modify certain language in the scope which identifies the products that are subject to the investigations as well as language which explains that merchandise under consideration described as parts at the time of importation is also covered by the scope. After examining the comments, the Department has preliminarily determined not to make the requested exclusions or modify the scope language as requested. For a detailed discussion of these issues,
Additionally, as noted above, on March 19, 2012, the Department clarified the scope language of both the AD and CVD investigations of solar cells stating that modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from solar cells produced in the PRC are covered by the investigations; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from solar cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigations.
In the petition filed on October 19, 2011, Petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to the AD investigation of solar cells from the PRC.
In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department generally considers current or previous AD duty orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders in any other country with regard to imports of subject merchandise.
Nevertheless, the Department has determined that importers knew, or should have known that the exporters were selling the merchandise under consideration at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales. The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary AD determination and the ITC's preliminary injury determination.
In determining whether there have been massive imports of merchandise under consideration over a relatively short period, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from the date on which this proceeding began if importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the petition, that a proceeding was likely. The Department has concluded that record information indicates that exporters, producers, and importers of solar cells from the PRC had reason to believe that AD and CVD proceedings were likely during September 2011. The petition included factual information from August 24, 2009, through October 11, 2011. The factual information included commentary about the closing and/or bankruptcy of U.S. solar cell companies, articles discussing subsidies given to Chinese solar cell producers in the PRC, and articles concerning actions being taken by the U.S. Trade Representative. However, it is not until September 2011 that the information submitted explicitly refers to AD and CVD remedies.
The Department typically determines whether to include the month in which a party had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely in the base, or comparison, period depending on whether the event that gave rise to the reason for belief occurred in the first or second half of the month. However, in this case, regardless of whether knowledge was imputed to importers, exporters or producers in the first or second half of September 2011, it does not change our findings with respect to whether imports have been massive over a relatively short period of time.
For Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar, we first compared imports during a base period of February 2011 through August 2011 to imports from September 2011 through March 2012 (assuming knowledge was imputed in early September, putting that month into the comparison period). Second, we compared imports during a base period of April 2011 through September 2011 to imports from October 2011 through March 2012 (assuming knowledge was imputed in late September, putting that month into the base period). It is the Department's practice to base the critical circumstances analysis on all available data, using base and comparison periods of no less than three months.
When we compared both Wuxi Suntech's shipments and Trina Solar's shipments
In determining whether imports of merchandise under consideration from the respondents who were not individually examined were massive, we relied on the experience of the mandatory respondents. Based on the experience of these mandatory respondents, we find that imports by all other producers or exporters also increased by more than 15 percent. Because, as discussed below, the PRC-wide entity did not respond to the Department's request for information (
Based on the above analysis, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist for Wuxi Suntech, Trina Solar, the separate rate respondents, and the PRC-wide entity.
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal value (“NV”), in most cases, on the NME producer's FOPs valued in a surrogate market-economy (“ME”) country or countries considered appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value FOPs using “to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy countries that are—(A) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country, and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.” Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value FOPs in a single surrogate country.
In its Surrogate Country Memorandum, the Department identified Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Peru, and Ukraine as being equally comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.
The Department considers all seven countries listed in the Surrogate Country Memorandum as having satisfied the economic comparability prong of the surrogate country selection criteria. Unless we find that all of the countries determined to be equally economically comparable are not significant producers of comparable merchandise, do not provide a reliable source of publicly available surrogate data or are unsuitable for use for other reasons, we will rely on data from one of these countries.
Once the countries that are economically comparable to the PRC have been identified, we select an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing FOPs is both available and reliable.
Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act directs the Department, to the extent possible, to value FOPs in a surrogate country that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The record contains evidence of producers of identical or comparable merchandise in
If more than one country satisfies the statutory requirements for selection as a surrogate country, the Department selects a surrogate country from among the potential countries based on data availability and quality. When evaluating surrogate value data, the Department considers several factors including whether the surrogate values are publicly available, contemporaneous with the POI, representative of a broad market average, from an approved surrogate country, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the inputs being valued. There is no surrogate value information on the record for South Africa, and a very limited amount of information for the Philippines and Ukraine. In contrast, the record contains usable Thai surrogate values for almost every input that must be valued.
Because Thailand is the only country listed on the Surrogate Country Memorandum found to be both economically comparable to the PRC and a significant producer of comparable merchandise for which we have reliable data to value almost every one of the FOPs, we have selected Thailand as the surrogate country. Given that one of the countries found to be economically comparable to the PRC satisfies the requirements for selection as a surrogate country, for purposes of the preliminary determination, there is no need for the Department to evaluate India as a potential surrogate country.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an AD investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
The statute allows the Department to employ an alternative dumping margin calculation methodology in an AD investigation under the following circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of EPs or CEPs for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; and (2) the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account using the standard average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology.
As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily determine that for both Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar there is a pattern of prices for U.S. sales of comparable merchandise that differ significantly among certain purchasers, regions, and time periods in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and our practice, as discussed in
To the extent that the Department's practice does not conflict with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department has, in prior cases, treated certain NME exporters and/or producers as a single entity if the facts of the case supported such treatment.
Section 771(33) of the Act identifies persons that shall be considered “affiliated” or “affiliated persons,” including,
The Department has preliminarily determined that the producers Trina Solar and Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(F) of the Act and that these companies should be treated as a single entity for AD purposes.
In addition, the Department preliminarily determines that Wuxi Suntech, Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd., Suntech Power Co., Ltd., and Wuxi Sun-Shine Power Co., Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act and that these companies should be treated as a single entity for AD purposes.
In the
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single AD rate.
Separate rate applicants in this investigation stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
The Department considers the following
The evidence provided by the SR Recipients supports a preliminary finding of
Petitioner argues that certain Chinese solar cell producers are subject to the legal control of a state-owned enterprise (“SOE”) and thus they have not demonstrated an absence of
The Department has preliminarily determined that the Interim Regulations do not automatically demonstrate
The Department notes that Article 7 of the Interim Regulations provides for the “separation of government functions from enterprise management and separation of ownership from management.” Further, Article 10 states that those companies operating under SASAC “enjoy autonomy in their operation” and that SASAC “shall support the independent operation of enterprises according to law, and shall not interfere in their production and operation activities * * *” The Department also notes that SASAC plays a role in approving the development of certain investment and business plans to ensure that these plans are in line with the PRC's industrial policy objectives as well in the appointment of the board and certain key senior management positions.
In addition, Article 42 of the Interim Regulations states that “organizational form, organizational structure, rights and obligations * * * shall be governed by the Company Law”, which the Department has previously found to demonstrate an absence of
Therefore, although SOEs may be shareholders in certain separate rate respondents, even where SASAC is the ultimate representative of the SOE holding shares, the Department finds that there is no information on the record that SASAC's role would extend to control over export activities, including pricing, in these separate rate applicants. Therefore, the Department finds that the laws placed on the record of this investigation establish the absence of
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to
Each of the SR Recipients have asserted the following: (1) Their EPs are
Evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the SR Recipients demonstrates an absence of
Petitioner argues that a number of separate rate applicants are not independent from the government with respect to certain activities such as selection of management and disposition of profits/financing losses. The Department has examined the record, including responses to supplemental questionnaires that were issued to a number of separate rate applicants, and preliminarily determined to grant these companies a separate rate.
Also, Petitioner argues that separate-rate respondents with senior managers who are members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (“CPPCC”) have not established
Additionally, Petitioner asserts that separate-rate respondents affiliated with, or having strong ties to, Chinese universities and colleges under the direct supervision of the PRC's Ministry of Education have failed to establish independence from the Chinese government. Petitioner believes that the Chinese government can exert control and influence over solar companies through the universities by threatening to sever-ties between the company and the university which provides its research capabilities to the company or by withdrawing research and development funding or other assistance. Consequently, Petitioner believes such companies have failed to establish independence from the Chinese government.
We have examined the above criteria relating to a
We have not granted a separate rate to the following companies for the following reasons: (1) Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd. failed to submit a timely response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. The Department stated in the
The record indicates that there were PRC exporters/producers of the merchandise under consideration during the POI that did not respond to the Department's request for quantity and value information. Specifically, the Department did not receive a response to its Q&V questionnaire from over 30 PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration named in the petition who were issued the questionnaire.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the AD statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
We find that the PRC-wide entity withheld Q&V information requested by the Department; failed to provide information in a timely manner, and significantly impeded the proceeding by not submitting the requested information. The PRC-wide entity did not file documents indicating it was having difficulty providing the information nor did it request that it be allowed to submit the information in an alternate form. As a result, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)–(C) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an inference that is adverse to a party if the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information.
When employing an adverse inference, section 776(b) of the Act states that the Department may rely upon information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate based on AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. It is the Department's practice to select, as an AFA margin, the higher of the: (a) Highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) highest calculated margin of any respondent in the investigation.
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject merchandise.”
The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination, we compared the petition margins to the margins we calculated for the individually examined respondents. We determined that the petition margin of 249.96 percent is reliable and relevant because it is within the range of the transaction-specific margins
The Department has preliminarily determined that in addition to the individually examined entities, 59 other companies have demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status. Normally, the Department's practice is to assign a rate to separate rate entities not individually examined equal to the average of the rates calculated for the individually examined respondents, excluding any rates that are zero,
Pursuant to section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations, “in identifying the date of sale of the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.” The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms.
Sales during the POI were made pursuant to short-term contracts, long-term contracts, and/or purchase orders. Sales were also made on the spot market. Petitioner maintains that Wuxi Suntech's date of sale should be based on contract or purchase order date because: (1) Sales terms are generally fixed in Wuxi Suntech's sales contracts; (2) certain terms under the contracts make it unlikely that changes are made after the contract date; (3) the solar industry uses contracts with fixed prices and terms that rarely change, and (4) Wuxi Suntech did not sufficiently demonstrate that the material terms of its contracts and purchase orders changed. Petitioner also contends that Trina Solar's date of sale should be based on contract date because: (1) Most long-term and short-term contracts do not allow changes in material terms; (2) Trina Solar has not disputed the fact that material terms of sale in its short-term contracts do not change; and (3) the sample documents purportedly
The relevant question in considering whether contract date or purchase order date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer established the material terms of sale, and thus is the appropriate date of sale, is whether the material terms of sale were subject to change on the contract date or purchase order date. The date of sale is the date when the material terms of sale are established and final—that is no longer subject to change.
In
In accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, to determine whether the mandatory respondents sold merchandise under consideration to the United States at less than fair value during the POI, we compared EP and CEP of the sales to NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price,” “Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).” Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar reported that during the POI, they made CEP sales through their respective U.S. affiliates. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated a CEP for Wuxi Suntech's and Trina Solar's U.S. sales where the merchandise subject to this investigation was sold by the U.S. affiliates on behalf of the respondents to unaffiliated purchasers.
We calculated CEP for Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We reduced the U.S. sales price by discounts and rebates. We also made deductions from the U.S. sales price, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. The movement expenses included expenses such as inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, brokerage and handling incurred in the country of export, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. inland freight, and other U.S. transportation and warehouse costs. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted from the U.S. price, direct and indirect selling expenses, credit, expenses, and inventory carrying costs, all of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. Where applicable, we reduced movement expenses by freight. We also adjusted U.S. price by interest revenue and insurance revenue. Finally, we deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated an EP for certain U.S. sales reported by Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar. We calculated EP based on the packed prices at which merchandise under consideration was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, or sold for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses, as appropriate (
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by the individually examined respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered among other factors, the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.
For the preliminary determination, except as noted below, we used Thai import data, as reported by the Thai Customs Department and published by GTA, and other publicly available sources from Thailand in order to calculate surrogate values for Wuxi Suntech's and Trina Solar's FOPs (
In calculating Thai import-based per-unit surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. Guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized.
Additionally, in calculating Thailand's import-based per-unit surrogate values, we disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, we excluded from our calculation of Thailand's import-based per-unit surrogate values imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.
To value polysilicon, we used world market prices from Photon Consulting and Energy Trend. We did not inflate the prices since they are contemporaneous with the POI.
Pursuant to section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, when a respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (
Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar claimed that certain of their reported material inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. Information reported by Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar demonstrates that for some of the inputs sourced from an ME country and paid
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for valuing the labor input in NME AD proceedings.
The Department valued labor using the methodology described in
The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, which was used to value labor, reflects all costs related to labor, including wages, and indirect labor costs such as benefits, housing, and training. The financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios do not include itemized details regarding the indirect labor costs incurred. Therefore, the Department has not made adjustments to the surrogate financial ratios.
Because water was used by the respondents in the production of solar cells, the Department considers water to be a direct material input rather than overhead.
We valued truck freight using Thai data published in the World Bank publication,
We valued ocean freight using rates from the Web site
We valued marine insurance using a marine insurance rate offered by RJG Consultants. RJG Consultants is an ME provider of marine insurance. The rate is a percentage of the value of the shipment; thus we did not inflate or deflate the rate.
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list for export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in Thailand in a 20-foot container. The price list was published in the World Bank publication,
We valued air freight using the rates published on the UPS Web site:
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements from Team Precision Public Ltd., Hana Microelectronics Co., Ltd., and KCE Electronics Public Company Limited, producers of comparable merchandise in Thailand. These financial statements cover the fiscal year ending December 2011 and, therefore, are contemporaneous.
Where necessary, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar.
In the
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We will disclose to parties the calculations performed in this investigation within five days of the date of pub`lication of this notice in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations.
As noted above, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of merchandise under consideration from Wuxi Suntech, Trina Solar, the SR Recipients, and the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise under consideration from Wuxi Suntech, Trina Solar, the SR Recipients, and the PRC-wide entity that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration 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 merchandise under consideration 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.
If importers are attempting to import solar panels/modules with solar cells produced in the PRC from third-countries without third-country case numbers related to this order, the importers should contact CBP Headquarters immediately.
In the companion CVD investigation, the Department preliminarily determined that the products under investigation exported by Trina Solar benefitted from an export subsidy.
As noted above, the Department has clarified the scope of both the AD and CVD investigations of solar cells by stating that modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from solar cells produced in the PRC are covered by the investigations; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from solar cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigations. If an importer imports solar panels/modules that it claims do not contain solar cells that were produced in the PRC, the importer is required to maintain the importer certification in the attachment to this notice. The importer and exporter are also required to maintain the exporter certification in the attachment to this notice if the exporter of the panels/modules for which the importer is making the claim is located in the PRC. We note that while importers and PRC-exporters will be required to maintain the aforementioned certifications and documentation, they will not have to provide this information to CBP as part of the entry documents, unless the certification or documentation is specifically requested by CBP.
If it is determined that the certification or documentation requirements noted in the certification have not been met, the Department intends to instruct CBP to suspend all unliquidated entries for which these requirements were not met and require the posting of a cash deposit or bond on those entries equal to the PRC-wide rate in effect at the time of the entry. If a solar panel/module contains some solar cells produced in the PRC, but the importer is unable or unwilling to identify the total value of the panel/module subject to the order, the Department intends to instruct CBP to suspend all unliquidated entries for which the importer has failed to supply this information and require the posting of a cash deposit or bond on the total entered value of the panel/module equal to the PRC-wide rate in effect at the time of the entry.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of solar cells, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Department no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on March 29, 2012 and March 30, 2012, we received requests from Wuxi Suntech and Trina Solar, respectively, that the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
I hereby certify that I am an official of
I hereby certify that I am an official of
The exports covered by this certification are
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is publishing this notice on behalf of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to announce the availability of and request comments on the technical reports that will be presented at NFPA's 2013 Annual Revision Cycle.
Twenty-one reports are published in the 2013 Annual Cycle Report on Proposals and will be available on June 22, 2012. Comments received by 5:00 p.m. ET on or before August 31, 2012 will be considered by the respective NFPA Committees before final action is taken on the proposals.
The 2013 Annual Revision Cycle Report on Proposals is available and downloadable from NFPA's Web site—
Amy Beasley Cronin, Secretary, Standards Council, NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169–7471, (617) 770–3000. David F. Alderman, NIST, 301–975–4019.
Since 1896, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has accomplished its mission by advocating scientifically based consensus codes and standards, research, and education for safety related issues. NFPA's
The NFPA process provides ample opportunity for public participation in the development of its codes and standards. All NFPA codes and standards are revised and updated every three to five years in Revision Cycles that begin twice each year and that take approximately two years to complete. Each Revision Cycle proceeds according to a published schedule that includes final dates for all major events in the process. The code revision Process contains five basic steps that are followed for developing new documents as well as revising existing documents: Call for Proposals; Report on Proposals (ROP); Call for Comments on the Committee's disposition of the Proposals and publication of these Comments in the Report on Comments (ROC); the Association Technical Meeting at the NFPA Conference & Expo; and finally, the Standards Council Consideration and Issuance of documents.
NFPA rules state that, anyone wishing to make Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) must signal his or her intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion by the Deadline of 5:00 p.m. ET on or before April 5, 2013. Certified motions will be posted by May 3, 2013. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the Annual 2013 Association Technical Meeting. Documents that receive no motions will be forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action and issuance through a Consent Document Ballot by the end of May 2013.
For more information on these new rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA Documents, check the NFPA Web site at
The purpose of this notice is to request comments on the technical reports that will be presented at NFPA's 2013 Annual Revision Cycle. The publication of this notice by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on behalf of NFPA is being undertaken as a public service; NIST does not necessarily endorse, approve, or recommend any of the standards referenced in the notice.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) develops building, fire, and electrical safety codes and standards. Federal agencies frequently use these codes and standards as the basis for developing Federal regulations concerning fire safety. Often, the Office of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of these standards under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Interested persons may participate in these revisions by submitting written data, views, or arguments, to Amy Beasley Cronin, Secretary, Standards Council, NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169–7471. Commenters may use the forms provided for comments in the Reports on Proposals. Each person submitting a comment should include his or her name and address, identify the notice, and give reasons for any recommendations. Comments received by 5:00 p.m. ET on or before August 31, 2012 for the 2013 Annual Cycle Report on Proposals will be considered by the NFPA before final action is taken on the proposals.
Copies of all written comments received and the disposition of those comments by the NFPA committees will be published as the 2013 Annual Cycle Report on Comments by February 22, 2013. A copy of the Report on Comments will be sent automatically to each commenter. Reports of the Technical Committees on documents that do not receive a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion will automatically be forwarded to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Action on the reports of the Technical Committees on documents that do receive a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion will be taken at the Association Technical Meeting, which is held at the NFPA Conference & Expo, June 10–13, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois, by the NFPA membership.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS); Opportunity for comments.
NOAA announces the public release of the Final SEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, and NOAA Administrative Order 216–6
Written comments and input will be accepted on or before June 25, 2012.
Written comments should be sent to Robb Gries, Project Engineer, NOAA, Project Planning & Management—Western Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115; email
Mr. Robb Gries, NOAA Project Engineer, at the address provided above. A copy of the Final SEIS can be viewed or downloaded at
The proposed action evaluated in the April 2009 Final EIS/EIR consisted of the demolition of Buildings B and C and the construction of a new SWFSC building on a property across La Jolla Shores Drive from the existing NMFS facilities. Currently, construction of the SWFSC building at the preferred site is underway. Demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing NOAA property would not occur until construction of the new SWFSC building has been completed.
A Notice of Intent to prepare the SEIS was published in the
NOAA has submitted the Final SEIS to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review and comment, in conformance with NEPA implementing regulations. Copies of this document have been made available to persons who commented on the Draft SEIS, to other individuals expressing interest, and posted on the NOAA Web page noted above in order to be accessible to the general public. NOAA is accepting comments on the Final SEIS during a minimum 30-day “cooling off” period beginning May 25, 2012, and ending on June 25, 2012.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Habitat Committee (HC) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public, to discuss habitat issues related to Council-managed fisheries.
The work session will be held Tuesday, June 12, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. or until business for the day is completed.
The meeting will be held at the Pacific Council Office, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384; telephone: (503) 820–2280.
Ms. Jennifer Gilden, Associate Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820–2280.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss habitat issues related to Council-managed fisheries, including Columbia River fisheries issues, the NOAA Habitat Blueprint, and the Council's development of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan. The HC may also discuss forage fish issues, Army Corps of Engineers levee vegetation policies, ocean energy proposals, and Klamath River water issues. A report is scheduled to be presented to the Pacific Council at the June, 2012 Council meeting in San Mateo, CA.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the HC for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal HC action during this meeting. HC action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the HC's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet June 20–26, 2012. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 8 a.m., reconvening each day through Tuesday, June 26, 2012. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held at the end of business on Thursday, June 21 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
The meetings will be held at the San Mateo Marriott Hotel, 1770 South Amphlett Boulevard, San Mateo, CA; telephone: (650) 653–6000.
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: (503) 820–2280 or (866) 806–7204 toll free; or access the Pacific Council Web site,
The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) ad hoc South of Humbug Pacific Halibut Workgroup (SHPHW) will hold a conference call to review background material on Pacific Halibut stock assessment, catch apportionment, and monitoring in Area 2A.
The conference call will be held Tuesday, June 12, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held via conference call, with a listening station provided at the Pacific Council Office, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384; telephone: (503) 820–2280.
Mr. Chuck Tracy, Staff Officer, Pacific Council: (503) 820–2280.
The purpose of the work session is to review progress and interim products relative to the Pacific Halibut stock assessment, catch apportionment process, and catch monitoring in Area 2A, with the objective of reporting how additional information from south of the Oregon/California border could be integrated into existing processes. A report is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Pacific Council at the September, 2012 Pacific Council meeting in Boise, ID.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the SHPHW for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal SHPHW action during this meeting. SHPHW action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the SHPHW's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting/workshop.
NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center will sponsor a workshop to address the stock structure of cod in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Scotian Shelf and Southern New England regions. The Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) in Portland, ME will organize and host the meeting scheduled for June 12–14, 2012.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 12, Wednesday, June 13 and Thursday, June 14, 2012, beginning at 9 a.m. each day.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Harborside Hotel, 250 Market St., Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 431–2300.
Patty Collins, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, (207) 228–1625.
The Stock Structure of Atlantic Cod in the Gulf of Maine Region workshop will explore current research to inform the cod assessment process. Invited participants from the fishing and scientific communities will present information on a range of topics. There also will be opportunities for discussion. Online registration is available at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Patty Collins at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, 350 Commercial Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: (207) 228–1625 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice of a public committee meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) will meet in Juneau, AK.
The meeting will be held June 14–15, 2012, 9 a.m. Alaska time.
The meeting will be held at NMFS Alaska Regional Office, 4th Floor Conference Room, 709 W. 9th St., Juneau, AK 99802.
Steve MacLean, NPFMC; telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The agenda for this public meeting will be posted on the Council Web site (
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271–2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold meetings of its Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Dolphin Wahoo Committee; Shrimp Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee; King and Spanish Mackerel Committee; Advisory Panel Selection Committee (Closed Session); Scientific and Statistical Selection Committee (Closed Session); Golden Crab Committee; Law Enforcement Committee; Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee; and a meeting of the Full Council. The Council will take action as necessary.
The Council will also hold a Habitat Workshop for Council members, an informal public question and answer session regarding agenda items, and a formal public comment session. See
The meetings will be held June 11–15, 2012. See
The meetings will be held at the Renaissance Orlando Airport Hotel, 5445 Forbes Place, Orlando, FL 32812; telephone: (1–800) 545–1985 or (407) 240–1000; fax: (407) 240–1005. Copies of documents are available from Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free at (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843)/769–4520; email:
The Council Member Habitat Workshop will receive an overview and demonstration of the Information Management System (IMS). The workshop will include a hands-on session with individual assistance.
The Ecosystem-Based Management Committee will receive Advisory Panel (AP) reports, review the decision document for Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE–BA 3), provide recommendations relative to management measures for Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), and public hearings. The Committee will receive an update on ecosystem activities and provide direction to staff.
The Dolphin Wahoo Committee will receive a report on the status of catches versus Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), as well as a report from the Dolphin Wahoo AP.
The Shrimp Committee will receive a presentation on the Endangered Species Act listing of Atlantic sturgeon and on the Biological Opinion of the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery. The Committee will also receive reports from its advisory panels and from the Shrimp Review Panel. The Committee will review actions and alternatives in Shrimp Amendment 9, which would expedite the closure process during severe cold events in order to protect overwintering shrimp populations and would revise the Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) proxy for pink shrimp. The Committee is scheduled to recommend the amendment for public hearings, take action as appropriate and provide guidance to staff.
The Snapper Grouper Committee will receive updates on: Oculina research activities; the status of catches versus quotas for species under quota management (including all snapper grouper species included in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment); the status of the new Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Quota
The Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee will receive presentations on quota monitoring/dealer reporting and tracking harvested fish in Florida and NMFS commercial and recreational quotas/ACL monitoring and projections. The Committee will review the joint Gulf and South Atlantic Council Generic Dealer Amendment and provide recommendations. The Committee will also review and discuss actions relative to data collection in CE–BA 3 and provide recommendations for public hearings.
There will be an informal public question and answer session with the NMFS Regional Administrator and the Council Chairman on June 13, 2012, beginning at 5:30 p.m.
The King and Spanish Mackerel Committee will receive updates on the status of catches versus ACLs for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel and cobia as well as a report from the Mackerel AP. The Committee will review and discuss the joint Gulf and South Atlantic Mackerel Amendment 19 pertaining to permits and tournament sale requirements, Amendment 20 regarding boundaries and transit provisions and provide recommendations for public hearings. The Committee will review and discuss the South Atlantic Mackerel Framework, and provide guidance to staff.
The Advisory Panel Selection Committee will review advisory panel applications and develop recommendations for appointments.
The Scientific and Statistical Selection Committee (SSC) will review SSC applications and develop recommendations for appointments. The Committee will also review SSC policies.
The Golden Crab Committee will review the “Expression of Interest” responses for catch shares from golden crab fishermen as well as Amendment 6, pertaining to establishing a catch share program for the commercial golden crab fishery. The Committee will modify the amendment as appropriate and provide recommendations relative for submission of the amendment for Secretarial review.
The Law Enforcement Committee will: Review law enforcement efforts in the Deepwater MPAs; and will receive briefings from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Committee will discuss issues as appropriate and select the 2011 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year.
A formal public comment session will be held on June 14, 2012, beginning at 5:30 p.m., on: Snapper Grouper Amendment 18A, Action 4 (transferability of black sea bass endorsements); Snapper Grouper Amendment 18B (golden tilefish); and Golden Crab Amendment 6 (catch shares); followed by comment on any other item on the agenda.
The SEDAR Committee will receive an overview of SEDAR activities and a presentation on the SSC Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) workshop. The Committee will review, discuss and approve the SAFMC Research Prioritization Plan and develop SEDAR Steering Committee recommendations for Council SEDAR members and staff.
From 9 a.m. until 9:30 a.m., the Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the March 2012 meeting minutes.
From 9:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee, approve the resubmittal of Amendment 18A/Action 4 and Amendment 18B for formal Secretarial review, approve speckled hind/warsaw grouper actions in CE–BA 3 for public hearing, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 10:30 a.m. until 11 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Golden Crab Committee, approve Amendment 6 for formal Secretarial review, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 11 a.m. until 11:15 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, approve Coral HAPC actions in CE–BA 3 for public hearing, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 11:15 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Dolphin Wahoo Committee, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 11:30 a.m. until 11:45 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Shrimp Committee, approve Amendment 9 for public hearing, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 11:45 a.m. until 12 noon, the Council will receive a report from the Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee, approve data actions in CE–BA 3 for public hearing, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 1 p.m. until 1:15 p.m., the Council will receive a legal briefing on litigation. (Closed Session)
From 1:15 p.m. until 1:30 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the King and Spanish Mackerel Committee, approve Amendments 19 and 20 for public hearings, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 1:30 p.m. until 1:45 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee, review applications and make appointments, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 1:45 p.m. until 2 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the SSC Selection Committee, review applications and make appointments, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 2 p.m. until 2:15 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Law Enforcement Committee, select the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 2:15 p.m. until 2:30 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 2:30 p.m. until 4 p.m., the Council will receive presentations and status reports from the NOAA Southeast Regional Office (SERO) and the NMFS SEFSC, review agency and liaison reports, and discuss other business, including upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal final Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda are subject to change.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Research Set-Aside Committee, Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee, and its Surfclam, Ocean Quahog Committee will hold public meetings.
The meetings will be held Monday June 11, 2012 through Thursday, June 14, 2012. See
The meetings will be held at the Hilton New York, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019; telephone: (212) 586–7000.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526–5255.
The Research Set-Aside Committee (RSA) and NMFS will meet in a closed session from 1 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.
The Research Set-Aside Committee will meet from 3:30 p.m. until 5 p.m.
The Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee will meet from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
The Council will convene at 1 p.m.
The Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee will meet as a Committee of the Whole from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. (2013 Specifications).
A NY Energy Initiatives Presentation will be held from 3 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.
Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM) presentations will be held from 3:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
A discussion of Monkfish Amendment 6 will be held from 4:30 p.m. until 5 p.m.
The Listening Session will be held from 5 p.m. until 6 p.m.
Visioning will be discussed from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
The Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Committee will meet as a Committee of the Whole (Amendment 14) from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m.
The Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee will meet as a Committee of the Whole from 3 p.m. until 4 p.m.
A Highly Migratory Species (HMS) presentation will be held from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m.
A National Standard 1 Guidelines discussion will be held from 9 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.
A clean Ocean Action presentation will be held from 9:30 a.m. until 10 a.m.
A Standardized Bycatch Research Methodology (SBRM) presentation will be held from 10 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.
The Council will hold its regular Business Session from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. to approve the April minutes, receive Organizational Reports, the New England Council Liaison Report, Executive Director's Report, Science Report, Committee Reports, and conduct any continuing and/or new business.
Agenda items by day for the Council's Committees and the Council itself are:
On Monday, June 11—The RSA Committee and NMFS will meet in a closed session to review the 2013 RSA proposals. The RSA will review staff recommendations for changes to the RSA program.
On Tuesday, June 12—the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee will select Amendment 14 Alternatives to recommend to the Council. The Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee will meet a Committee of the Whole to develop 2013 quota specifications and associated management measures and review Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommendations on 2012 butterfish Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) and take any needed actions. Greg Capobianco of the NY Department of State will provide a NY Energy Initiatives presentation. There will be two presentations by Kim Skrupsky of Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM) and Dr. Christopher Clark of Cornell on seismic testing impacts associated with
On Wednesday, June 13—Discussion on the background and context of the Visioning project, review the objectives and methods for stakeholder data gathering presentation and discussion of stakeholder data report, and the proposal for the next phase of the visioning and strategic plan. The Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee will meet as a Committee of the Whole to select Amendment 14 alternatives to recommend to NMFS for implementation. The Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee will meet as a Committee of the Whole to review and consider changes to the 2013 quota specifications for surfclams and ocean quahogs and update PSP, data collection, 2012 survey, and stock assessment. There will be a presentation by Tom Warren of NMFS on HMS Amendment 7 Scoping (Bluefin tuna management).
On Thursday, June 14—NMFS proposal to review/revise National Standard 1 Guidelines will be discussed. There will be a presentation by Cindy Zipf, regarding Clean Ocean Action. Doug Potts of NMFS will provide a presentation on SBRM alternatives. The Council will hold its regular Business Session to approve the April 2012 minutes, receive Organizational Reports, the New England Council Liaison Report, the Executive Director's Report, Science Report, Committee Reports, and conduct any continuing and/or new business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of three modified Letters of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued three Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to take marine mammals by harassment, incidental to the U.S. Navy's training activities within the Virginia Capes (VACAPES), Jacksonville (JAX), and Cherry Point (CHPT) Range Complexes to the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, 1562 Mitscher Avenue, Suite 250, Norfolk, VA 23551–2487 and persons operating under his authority.
Effective from June 5, 2012, through June 4, 2014.
Copies of the Navy's request for LOAs, the Navy's 2011–2012 marine mammal monitoring report and the Navy's 2011–2012 exercise report are available by writing to Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, by telephoning the contact listed here (SEE FOR
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 724–8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.
Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the U.S. Navy's training activities at the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes were published on June 15, 2009 (VACAPES: 74 FR 28328; JAX: 74 FR 28349; CHPT: 74 FR 28370) and remain in effect through June 4, 2014. They are codified at 50 CFR part 218 subpart A (VACAPES), subpart B (JAX), and subpart C (CHPT). These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's range complex training exercises. For detailed information on these actions, please refer to the June 15, 2009
An interim final rule was issued on May 26, 2011 (76 FR 30552) to allow certain flexibilities concerning Navy's training activities at VACAPES and JAX, and LOAs were issued to the Navy on June 1, 2011 (76 FR 33266; June 8, 2011). These LOAs were subsequently modified on January 6, 2012, to allow takes of marine mammals by using time-delayed firing devices (
On February 12, 2012, NMFS published a final rule (77 FR 4917) that allows for the issuance of multi-year LOAs, as long as the regulations governing such LOAs are valid, and finalized the May 26, 2011 interim rule.
On January 19, 2012, the Navy submitted an application to take marine mammals incidental to training activities at VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes under the regulations issued on June 15, 2009 (VACAPES: 74 FR 28328; JAX: 74 FR 28349; CHPT: 74 FR 28370) and modified on February 12, 2012 (77 FR 4917). The application requested authorization for two years, to take marine mammals by harassment, incidental to proposed training activities that involve the use of
As described in the Navy's Annual Range Complex Exercise Report for the NAVSEA VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes, between January 2, 2011, and January 1, 2012, the training activities conducted by the Navy were within the scope and amounts contemplated by the final rule and identified by the 2011 LOAs. A detailed description of the Navy's 2011 training activities can be found in the exercise reports posted on NMFS Web site:
In 2012 through June 2014, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of training activities identified in the final rules and 2011 LOAs, including the use of time-delay firing devices. No modification is proposed by the Navy for its planned 2012–2014 activities.
The estimated takes for the Navy's proposed training activities are the same as those contemplated in the regulations and authorized in the 2011 LOAs.
The Navy submitted its 2011 exercise reports within the required timeframes and it is posted on the NMFS Web site:
Specifically, at the VACAPES Range Complex, the Navy conducted 14 5-lb charge, 28 10-lb charge, and 3 20-lb charge mine exercise (MINEX); 5 Mk-82 (500 lb bomb) Air-to-Surface Bombing Exercises (BOMEX); 28 AGM–114 (Hellfire missile) exercises and 1 AGM–65 (Maverick missile) exercise (MISSIEX); and 13 5′ explosive Naval gunfire exercises (FIREX with IMPASS). No AGM–88 (HARM missile) and MK–83/GBU–32 (1,000 lb bomb) exercise was conducted during the reporting period.
At the JAX Range Complex, the Navy conducted 9 AGM–114 (Hellfire missile) exercises and 3 AGM–65 (Maverick missile) exercises; and 6 FIREX with IMPASS. No MINEX and no Small Arms Training was conducted during the reporting period.
At the CHPT Range Complex, the Navy conducted only one FIREX with IMPASS. No other exercise (MINEX and MISSIEX) was conducted.
The Navy submitted their 2011 annual marine mammal monitoring reports covering the period from January 2, 2011, through January 1, 2012, and the reports are posted on NMFS Web site:
For training exercises at the VACAPES Range Complex, the Navy implemented vessel and aerial surveys and deployed passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) devices. The monitoring efforts for 2011 were conducted within the mine neutralization exercise (MINEX) W–50 box in conjunction with a MINEX event, and the Firing Exercise (FIREX) 7C/7D training boxes in junction with a FIREX event.
A vessel survey was conducted on July 14, 2011, in association with a FIREX with IMPASS training event off the coast of Virginia. Four marine mammal observers (MMOs) were stationed aboard a Navy vessel. No marine mammal species were sighted. Vessel surveys were also conducted in association with a MINEX training event off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Seven MMOs were stationed aboard a Navy vessel. Surveys were conducted on August 7–9, 2011 before, during, and after the training event. During the 3-day monitoring trip, a total of 19 bottlenose dolphin sightings including approximately 91–149 individuals were recorded by the Navy MMOs. No injuries or mortalities of marine mammals were observed during the MINEX training. No marine mammal was sighted between 30 minutes pre-detonation and 30 minutes post-detonation. In addition, aerial surveys were conducted in association with a FIREX training event with IMPASS off the coast of Virginia. Line-transect surveys were conducted on July 13–15, 2011, before, during, and after the training event. Three sightings of marine mammals were made during the 1-day pre-FIREX survey; two sightings of marine mammals were recorded throughout the 1-day during FIREX survey period; and four sightings of marine mammals were recorded during the 1-day post-FIREX survey. No injuries or mortalities of marine mammals were observed during the FIREX training event on July 14. No live explosive rounds were used during the FIREX training. Therefore, no animals were exposed during this VACAPES FIREX with IMPASS training event. Finally, acoustic buoys were deployed on August 7 and 8, 2011, to monitor marine mammal vocalization activity before, during, and after the MINEX event. Six buoys were deployed on both days. Total successful recording time was approximately 38.3 hours, which included 22.75 hours on August 7 and 15.5 hours on August 8. A preliminary analysis of the acoustic recordings was performed on the August 8 data using 1-minute spectrogram window, which showed some odontocete whistles. Based on earlier sightings from that day, the Navy stated that the vocalizations are most likely from bottlenose dolphins.
For training exercises at the JAX Range Complex, aerial surveys were conducted in association with a FIREX training event with IMPASS off the coast of Georgia and Florida. Line-transect surveys were conducted on September 19–21, 2011, before, during, and after the training event. No sightings of marine mammals were recorded during these surveys.
For training exercises at the CHPT Range Complex, aerial surveys were conducted in association with a FIREX with IMPASS training event off the coast of North Carolina. The pre-FIREX line-transact survey on November 29, 2011, was cancelled due to poor weather and low ceiling conditions. No sightings of marine mammals were recorded during the 1.4 hours of total survey flight time (includes on-effort and off-effort intervals) within the survey area covering a 1-day period (November 30, 2011). One large unidentified whale was briefly seen approximately 18 km south of Lookout Bight, North Carolina (approximately 100 km outside of the survey area) on the transit back to the airport.
In general, adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if monitoring efforts should be modified if new information suggests that such modifications are appropriate. All of the 5-year rules and LOAs issued to the Navy include an adaptive management component, which includes an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy.
No changes were requested from the Navy for the 2012–2014 LOAs for VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes.
Since there are no changes in the Navy's proposed training activities at the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes, NMFS' determination that the Navy's training activities at these Range Complexes will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals in the action area, as described in the original regulations and the interim regulations, is still valid. There is no subsistence use of marine mammals that could potentially be impacted by the Navy's training activities at the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes. Further, the level of taking authorized in June 2012 through June 2014 for the Navy's VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes training activities is consistent with our previous findings made for the total taking allowed under the regulations and interim regulations for these Range Complexes. Accordingly, NMFS has issued three two-year LOAs for Navy's training activities conducted at the VACAPES, JAX, and CHPT Range Complexes from June 5, 2012, through June 4, 2014.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–3259.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On March 16, 2012 (77 FR 15736) and March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17035), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletion from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service previously provided by such agency.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 USC 8501–8506) in connection with the service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Process and Impact Evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Scott Richardson, at (202) 606–6903 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to 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 submissions of responses.
A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the
Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces (subsequently referred to as the Task Force) will take place.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012–Friday, June 15, 2012, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT, each day.
Crowne Plaza Old Town Alexandria, 901 N. Fairfax St., Alexandria, VA 22314.
Mail Delivery service through Recovering Warrior Task Force, Hoffman Building II, 200 Stovall St., Alexandria, VA 22332–0021 “Mark as Time Sensitive for June Meeting”. Emails to
Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the Task Force Members to prepare and vote on recommendations and time permitting, discuss the remaining sections of the annual report.
Agenda: (Please refer to
Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102–3.140 through 102–3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces about its mission and functions. If individuals are interested in making an oral statement during the Public Forum time period, a written statement for a presentation of two minutes must be submitted through the contact information in
Written statements in which the author does not wish to present orally may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Task Force through the contact information in
Statements, either oral or written, being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed in
The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Task Force Co-Chairs and ensure they are provided to all members of the Task Force before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
Reasonable accommodations will be made for those individuals with disabilities who request them. Requests for additional services should be directed to Heather Jane Moore, (703) 325–6640, by 5 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, June 6, 2012.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), Department of Defense.
Federal Advisory Committee Meeting Notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) the Department of Defense announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Policy Board (hereafter referred to as “the DPB”).
The Pentagon, 2000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–2000.
From Tuesday, June 19, 2012 (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) through Wednesday, June 20, 2012 (7:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.) the DPB will hold a quarterly meeting under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended).
Ms. Ann Hansen, 2000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–2000. Phone: (703) 571–9232.
Notice of Meeting of the Air University Board of Visitors.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the Air University Board of Visitors' meeting will take place on Tuesday, 24 July 2012, from 1:30p.m. to approximately 4 p.m. The meeting will be a conference call meeting. Please contact Mrs. Diana Bunch, Designated Federal Officer, at (334) 953–4547, for further information to access the conference call. The purpose and agenda of this meeting is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the educational policies and programs of Air University and for the
Mrs. Diana Bunch, Designated Federal Officer, Air University Headquarters, 55 LeMay Plaza South, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112–6335, telephone (334) 953–4547.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
This amended notice provides information on withdrawal of surplus property at Fort Tilden U.S. Army Reserve Center, New York, New York. This notice amends the Notice published in the
Effective May 29, 2012.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Division, Attn: DAIM–BD, 600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0600, (703) 545–1318. For information regarding the specific property listed below, contact the Army BRAC Division at the mailing address above or at
In 2005, Fort Tilden U.S. Army Reserve Center was designated for closure under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101–510, as amended. On May 9, 2006, the Department of the Army published a Notice in the
This action is authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–510, as amended; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
By rule, no member of the public attending open meetings will be allowed to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the Board. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the USMA Board of Visitors. Written statements should be sent to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at: United States Military Academy, Office
The Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact is Ms. Deadra Ghostlaw, (845) 938–4200,
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of Intent.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of a prospective partially exclusive license of the following U.S. Patent Application 12/243,084 Filed October 01, 2008 to Green and Grow, LLC for use of the biopolymer product as a natural soil amendment and seed coating that promotes more efficient growth of crops and vegetation.
Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.
United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Attn: CEERD–OT (Ms. Bea Shahin), 2902 Newmark Drive, Champaign, IL 61822–1076.
Ms. Bea Shahin (217) 373–7234, FAX (217) 373–7210, email
This patent application claims a method by which a biologically-natural material can be produced in bioreactors and transformed for use as a dry solid. The resulting biopolymer material can be used in place of synthetic, petroleum-based polymers for soil amendment applications to achieve increased soil strength, reduced air transport, and decreased soil erosion. During processing, the biopolymer also can be functionalized to improve its adsorption of heavy metals.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice.
It is proposed that the hours of availability at Jonesville and Columbia Locks on the Ouachita and Black Rivers will be reduced from the current schedule of 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year to 18 hours per day, separated into two 9 hour periods, 5 a.m. to 2 p.m., and 5 p.m. to 2 a.m., 7 days per week, 365 days per year. It is also proposed that the hours of availability at Felsenthal and H.K. Thatcher Locks on the Ouachita and Black Rivers will be reduced from the current schedule of 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year to 16 hours per day, separated into two 8 hour periods, 5 a.m. to 1 p.m., and 5 p.m. to 1 a.m., 7 days per week, 365 days per year. Constrained funding and fiscal deficit have led to reduced operation and maintenance funding on the Ouachita/Black Waterway. The intended effect is to provide lock availability that matches existing lock usage and to help ensure that minimal dredging needs will be met. Pool levels will not be affected by change of operating hours.
Proposed implementation date is July 29, 2012.
Submit written comments to Mr. James V. Ross, Chief, Operations Division, Vicksburg District, US Army Corps of Engineers, 4155 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183, or deliver them to Mr. Ross between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday at the address above. Comments received and other materials relevant to the proposed reduction in hours of lock availability will be posted on the Vicksburg District Web site,
Mr. Michael Kidby at the Corps of Engineers Headquarters in Washington, DC, by phone at 202–761–0250.
The legal authority for the regulation governing the use, administration, and navigation of the Ouachita and Black Rivers and Locks is Section 4 of the River and Harbor Act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat. 362), as amended, which is codified at 33 U.S.C. Section 1. This statute requires the Secretary of the Army to “prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States” as the Secretary determines may be required by public necessity. Reference 33 CFR Part 207.249, Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La., Mile 0.0 to Mile 338.0 (Camden, Ark.) above the mouth of the Black River; the Red River, La., Mile 6.7 (Junction of Red, Atchafalaya and Old Rivers) to Mile 276.0 (Shreveport, La.); use, administration, and navigation.
The United States Presidential Scholars Program is a national recognition program to honor outstanding graduating high school seniors. Candidates are invited to apply based on academic achievements on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or American College Testing (ACT) assessments, or on artistic merits based on participation in a national talent search.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 25, 2012.
Written comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The purpose of the information collection is to compile information about each student candidate who is applying (via the U.S. Presidential Scholars Program Application) to be recognized as a U.S. Presidential Scholar in that year. Candidates are invited to apply via a selection process determined by the Commission on Presidential Scholars. Interested candidates submit applications to be processed and organized for review by a contractor. This information is evaluated first by an independent review committee, which selects some 560 semifinalists, and finally by the Commission on Presidential Scholars, which selects up to 141 Scholars. After this, the information is used for the development of student biographies, press releases, talking points for U.S. Department of Education and White House staff, and/or other publications or purposes. The information obtained through this collection is required to conduct the selection of each year's “class” of U.S. Presidential Scholars, as required by Executive Orders 11155 and 12158.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Application.
DC Energy, LLC (DC Energy) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before June 25, 2012.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202–586–5260, or by email to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C.824a(e)).
On July 11, 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA–327 authorizing DC Energy to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term. The current export authority in Order No EA–327 will expire on July 11, 2012. On May 4, 2012, DC Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of that authority for an additional ten-year term.
In its application, DC Energy states that “not any of its affiliates own, controls or operates any electric generation, electric distribution or transmission facilities * * *” DC Energy states that the electric power proposed to be exported to Canada will be purchased from electric utilities and federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements and will be surplus to the system needs of the entities selling the power to DC Energy. The application also indicates that DC Energy is a power marketer authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to sell energy, capacity, and specified ancillary services at market-based rates.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by DC Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments on the DC Energy application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. 327–A. An additional
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Five power marketing subsidiaries of Emera Incorporated (Emera) have applied separately to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before June 25, 2012.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202–586–5260, or by email to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On April 19, 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA–321, EA–322, EA–323, EA–324 and EA–325, authorizing the Emera Subsidiaries to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as power marketers for a five-year term. The current export authorities in Order No EA–321, EA–322, EA–323, EA–324 and EA–325 expired on April 19, 2012. On April 19, 2012, Emera filed five separate applications with DOE for renewal of those authorities for an additional five-year term.
In its application, Emera states that the subsidiaries do “not own or control any electric power generation or transmission facilities and does not have a franchised electric power service area.” Emera states that the electric power proposed to be exported to Canada will be purchased from electric utilities and federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements and will be surplus to the system needs of the entities selling the power to Emera.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Emera have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments on the Emera applications to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. 321–A, EA–322–A, EA–323–A, EA–324–A or EA–325–A. An additional copy is to be sent to Will Szubielski, Emera Energy Inc., 1223 Lower Water Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S8 and with Bonnie A. Suchman, Esq., Troutman Sanders LLP, 401 9th St. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and if a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, Cogeneration and Small Power Production—Tariff Filings.
Comments on the collection of information are due July 24, 2012.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC12–14–000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
In Orders Nos. 671 and 671–A,
FERC implemented the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to establish criteria for new qualifying cogeneration facilities by: (1) Amending the exemptions available to qualifying facilities from the FPA and from PUHCA [resulting in the burden imposed by FERC–914, the subject of this statement]; (2) ensuring that these facilities are using their thermal output in a productive and beneficial manner; that the electrical, thermal, chemical and mechanical output of new qualifying cogeneration facilities is used fundamentally for industrial, commercial, residential or industrial purposes; and there is continuing progress in the development of efficient electric energy generating technology; (3) amending the FERC Form 556
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $2,995,016 [43,400 hours ÷ 2,080
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
n.
o.
p.
q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing the original and seven copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is June 18, 2012.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Please include the project number (P–2232–595) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that on May 17, 2012, pursuant to section 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206; section 13(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. 13(1); and section 343.2(c)(3) of the Commission's Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, High Prairie Pipeline, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Respondent) for violations of sections 3(6), 1(6), 6(1), 1(4) and 6(7) of the ICA and sections 341.0 and 341.8 of the Commission's regulations.
The Complainant states that a copy of the Complaint has been served on the contact for the Respondent as listed on the Commission list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the MPP Project, proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) in the above-referenced docket. TGP requests authorization to construct and operate 7.9 miles of looped
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the MPP Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The COE intends to adopt and use the EA in connection with its evaluation of TGP's Clean Water Act (Section 404) permit application for the MPP Project.
The proposed MPP Project includes the following facilities in Pennsylvania:
• Installation of 7.9 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Potter County, designated as Loop 313;
• Miscellaneous aboveground equipment along Loop 313 including a pig launcher;
• Facility modifications at the following four existing compressor stations to provide bi-directional natural gas flow: Station 219 in Mercer County, Station 303 in Venango County, Station 310 in McKean County, and Station 313 in Potter County.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP12–28–000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
On May 4, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued notice of a section 106 consultation meeting, to be held in Lowell, Massachusetts on May 24, 2012, to address historic preservation issues for the proposed license amendment application for the Lowell Hydroelectric Project No. 2790. Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the following are consulting parties for participation in the section 106 consultation meeting: Commission staff, Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, City of Lowell, and Boott Hydropower, Inc. and the Eldred L. Field Hydroelectric Facility Trust (co-licensees for the Lowell Hydroelectric Project). A copy of the agenda for the meeting is attached.
On September 21, 2011, the Pawtucketville Citizens Council filed a request to be a consulting party for the section 106 consultation process in this proceeding. This request is denied. The Commission involves the public and provides opportunities for public comment on historic preservation matters during its licensing and amendment proceedings, and through its environmental review process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The Commission also allows interested members of the public to file comments on the section 106 process.
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on April 4, 2012, and as required in the Commission's March 30, 2012 order in these dockets,
1. Please explain in depth each step of the commitment process with special
2. Please provide a simple example of how to calculate proxies for voltage limits.
3. Please explain the assertion that all low-voltage transmission facilities are presumed to have significant market power and should be designated for Voltage and Local Reliability (VLR) commitments. Please supplement the record with additional materials as appropriate.
4. With regard to your written answer to pre-conference question 3, it appears that some units were not economically dispatched in hours when they had zero unit headroom. Why? Is it possible to have EcoMax equal EcoMin?
5. Please provide a numerical example to illustrate how you perform the calculations detailed in Tab B of your pre-conference comments.
6. Please explain why the word “or” that previously conjoined bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been changed to “and.”
7. Your exhibit refers to units with incremental energy offer prices at half their reference level, as MISO proposes to mitigate through proposed Tariff Section 64.1.3.a.i(a). How could a market participant benefit by offering in this way?
8. Please explain your assertions that market power mitigation is necessary for any generation unit on a line rated less than 100 kV, and that constraints on facilities rated less than 100 kV are unlike constraints on facilities rated above 100 kV. Why are all low-voltage transmission facilities presumed to be locations for the exercise of significant market power? Please supplement the record with additional materials as appropriate.
9. With regard to the slide you presented from the 2010 State of the Market Report, please explain why reference levels have been rising.
10. Please explain why the word “or” that previously conjoined bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been changed to “and.”
11. In light of the discussion at the conference, are changes to the definition of Voltage and Local Reliability Commitment (proposed tariff section 1.697a) necessary, and if so, what should those changes be?
12. There was discussion at the conference of whether it is possible to build a voltage component into locational marginal prices (LMP), and dispatching units for VLR via the Security-Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCUC). Please discuss the competing concerns of accurately constructing locational marginal prices and accurately allocating costs. For example, if it was possible to dispatch VLR units through the SCUC, could this be done on a purely economic basis? What would be the effect on Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee cost incurrence?
13. Conference participants discussed two competing methodologies to address cost causation for resolving voltage limits. The first methodology was allowing the market to resolve such voltage limits by sending a price signal to behind-the-meter generation. The second method was MISO's methodology of uplifting the cost of VLR commitments to local loads.
a. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of each methodology and explain how a finding of justness and reasonableness could be made for each methodology.
b. Please explain how to take such behind-the-meter generation into account in system models and send price signals.
c. Is it possible to provide incentives for behind-the-meter generation to respond to market forces in such a way as to address voltage issues, and if so, what is the best way to achieve this?
Parties wishing to file comments on the matters discussed at the technical conference, and wishing to reply to comments filed by others, should do so on the following schedule:
Comments: Due on or before June 5, 2012.
Reply comments: Due on or before June 19, 2012.
On April 12, 2012, Coastal Hydropower, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Menasha-Neenah Water Power Project, which would be located on the Fox River, in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) Installation of 12 Very Low Head (VLH) 500-kilowatt (kW) turbine units; (2) a proposed 700-foot-long, 12-kilovolt transmission line; (3) a proposed 300-foot-long, 13-kilovolt transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Menasha-Neenah Water Power Project would have an estimated average annual generation of 31.5 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency has found the following adequate for transportation conformity purposes: The “Revised PM
This finding is effective June 11, 2012.
Tim Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, telephone number (303) 312–6479, fax number (303) 312–6064, or email
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our,” are used, we mean EPA.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The conformity rule provisions at 40 CFR 93 require that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) and establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP revision's motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) is adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780). We described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004 Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments (69 FR 40004). In addition, in certain areas with monitored ambient carbon monoxide (CO) values significantly below the NAAQS, EPA has allowed states to use limited maintenance plans (LMPs), which contain no future year maintenance projections and, therefore, no MVEBs. (See “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,” signed by Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group (MD–15), October 6, 1995, also known as EPA's “LMP Policy.”) In an area covered by an approved carbon monoxide LMP, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are presumed to automatically satisfy the emissions budget test requirement, and no regional emissions analysis with respect to a MVEB under sections 40 CFR 93.118 or 93.119 (i.e., MVEB(s), build less than no-build, or build less than base year) of the conformity rule is required for RTP and TIP conformity. We used these resources in making our adequacy determinations announced in this notice.
This notice is simply an announcement of findings that we have already made and are as described below:
For the Aspen PM
Please note that our adequacy review described above is separate from our rulemaking action on the two maintenance plans discussed above and should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval or disapproval of each
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 24, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0007 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Sella M. Burchette, U.S. Environmental Response Team, MS 101, Building 205, Edison, NJ 08837, telephone number: 721–321–6726; fax number: 732–321–6724; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0007 established a public docket for each of the ICRs identified in this document (see the Docket ID. numbers for each ICR that are provided in the text, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
These burden estimates reflect what is currently approved by OMB, without change. EPA will provide revised burden estimates when the second comment period for this ICR is opened. However, as the universe and regulations have not changed, EPA does not anticipate any substantive changes to the burden figures.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public comment period for the draft document titled, “An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska” (EPA–910–R–12–004a–d). The document was prepared by the EPA's Region 10 (Pacific Northwest and Alaska), EPA's Office of Water, and EPA's Office of Research and Development. The EPA conducted this assessment to determine the significance of Bristol Bay's ecological resources and evaluate the potential impacts of large-scale mining on these resources. EPA will use the results of this assessment to inform the consideration of options consistent with its role under the Clean Water Act. The assessment is intended to provide a scientific and technical foundation for future decision making; EPA will not address use of its regulatory authority until the assessment becomes final and has made no judgment about whether and how to use that authority at this time.
The public comment period began Friday, May 18, 2012, and ends Monday, July 23, 2012. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by Monday, July 23, 2012.
The draft “An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska” is available primarily via the Internet on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay Web site at
Comments on the report may be submitted electronically via
For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202–566–1752; facsimile: 202–566–1753; or email:
For technical information concerning the report, contact Judy Smith; telephone: 503–326–6994; facsimile: 503–326–3399; or email:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted this assessment to determine the significance of Bristol Bay's ecological resources and evaluate the potential impacts of large-scale mining on these resources. The EPA will use the results of this assessment to inform the consideration of options consistent with its role under the Clean Water Act. The assessment is intended to provide a scientific and technical foundation for future decision making. The Web site that describes the project is
EPA is releasing this draft assessment for the purposes of public comment and peer review. This draft assessment is not final as described in EPA's information quality guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views. EPA utilizes public comments as one means to ensure that science products are complete and accurate. EPA is seeking comments from the public on all aspects of the report, including the scientific and technical information presented in the report, the hypothetical mining scenario used, the data and information used to inform assumptions about mining activities and the evaluations of risk to the fishery, and the potential mitigation measures considered (and effectiveness of those measures). EPA is also specifically seeking any additional data or scientific or technical information about Bristol Bay resources or large-scale mining that should be considered in our evaluation.
EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document. After public review and comment, EPA's independent contractor, Versar, Inc., will convene an expert panel for independent external peer review of this draft assessment. The public comment period and external peer review meeting are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the assessment. The preferred method to submit comments is through the docket, which is described below. Public meetings will be held in Anchorage, Dillingham, Newhalen, Naknek, Nondalton, and New Stuyahok, AK during the week of June 4–8, 2012. Spoken comments will be accepted at these meetings. The external peer review panel meeting is scheduled to be held in Anchorage, AK on August 7, 8, and 9, 2012. The public will be invited to attend on August 7 and 8, 2012. Further information regarding the external peer review panel meeting will be announced at a later date in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2012–0276, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
Susan Bartow, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 603–0065; email address:
The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0163. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
The preamble for FR Doc. 2012–11072 published in the
Environmental protection, pesticides and pests.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
EPA is seeking agencies to participate in its e-NEPA electronic EIS submission pilot. Participating agencies can fulfill all requirements for EIS filing, eliminating the need to submit paper copies to EPA Headquarters, by filing documents online and providing feedback on the process. To participate in the pilot, register at:
Revision to FR Notice Published 4/20/2012; Change Comment Period Due Date from 06/01/2012 to 06/20/2012.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces receipt of applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients, pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. EPA is publishing this Notice of such applications, pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA.
Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0390, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
A contact person is listed at the end of each registration application summary and may be contacted by telephone or email. The mailing address for each contact person listed is: Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of FIFRA, and is publishing this Notice of such applications pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
Notice; Request for public comment on proposed CERCLA 122(h)(1) agreement with 21 parties for the Wabash Environmental Technologies Superfund Site.
In accordance with section 122(i)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notification is hereby given of a proposed administrative agreement concerning the Wabash Environmental Technologies hazardous waste site in Terre Haute, Indiana (the “Site”). EPA proposes to enter into this agreement under the authority of section 122(h) and 107 of CERCLA. The proposed agreement has been executed by: AAA Galvanizing of Dixon, Inc.; Brenntag Mid-South, Inc. (successor to G.S. Robins & Co. and Ulrich Chemical, Inc.); Chemetall US, Inc., fka Oakite Products Inc.; City of Terre Haute Board of Public Works and Safety; ConAgra Foods Inc.; Elixir Industries; Enviromark Corporation; General Electric Company on behalf of GE Silicones and Momentive Performance Materials, Inc.; Glas-Col LLC; Interplastic Corporation; Marathon Pipe Line LLC; Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Perma-Fix of Dayton, Inc./Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc.; The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company; Rochester Midland Corporation; Rock-Tenn Company on behalf of Smurfit-Stone; Speedway LLC (formerly known as Speedway SuperAmerica LLC); Superior Oil Company, Inc.; Superior Oil Company, Inc. for Superior Fiberglass & Resins; Technicote, Inc.; and Weatherford International. (the “Settling Parties”).
Under the proposed agreement, the Settling Parties will pay a total of $710,053.43 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund to resolve EPA's claims against the Settling Parties for response costs incurred by EPA at the Site. EPA has incurred response costs investigating and performing response actions at the Site to mitigate potential imminent and substantial endangerments to human health or the environment presented or threatened by hazardous substances present at the Site.
For thirty days following the date of publication of this notice, the EPA will receive written comments relating to this proposed agreement. EPA will consider all comments received and may decide not to enter this proposed agreement if comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed agreement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate.
Comments on the proposed agreement must be received by EPA on or before June 25, 2012.
Comments should be addressed to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590, and should refer to: In the Matter of Wabash Environmental Technologies Site, Chicago, Illinois, U.S. EPA Docket No. V–W–12C–997.
Thomas J. Krueger, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, C–14J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590, (312) 886–0562.
A copy of the proposed administrative settlement agreement may be obtained in person or by mail from the EPA's Region 5 Office of Regional Counsel, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590. Additional background information relating to the settlement is available for review at the EPA's Region 5 Office of Regional Counsel.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601–9675.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been
The meeting announced below concerns Research to Enhance Community-Based Fall Prevention among Older Adults, SIP12–058, and Developing a Compendium of Measures and Questions to Assess Mobility: A Focus on Older Adult Populations, SIP12–059, Panel D, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Medical Resident Knowledge and Practice in Physical Activity, Nutrition, and Obesity Counseling for Primary Prevention of Cancer, SIP12–053, Panel C, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Coordinating Center for the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Prevention Research Centers Network, SIP12–056, and Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Collaborating Center for Epilepsy Self-Management Intervention Research, SIP12–057, Panel E, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice of Cancellation: This notice was published in the
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the application of the Joint Commission for re-approval as an accreditation organization for clinical laboratories under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) program for all specialty and subspecialty areas under CLIA. We have determined that the Joint Commission meets or exceeds the applicable CLIA requirements. We are announcing the re-approval and granting the Joint Commission deeming authority for a period of 6 years.
This notice is effective from May 25, 2012 to May 25, 2018.
Kathleen Todd, (410) 786–3385.
On October 31, 1988, the Congress enacted the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) (Pub. L. 100–578). CLIA amended section 353 of the Public Health Service Act. We issued a final rule implementing the accreditation provisions of CLIA on July 31, 1992 (57 FR 33992). Under those provisions, we may grant deeming authority to an accreditation organization if its requirements for laboratories accredited under its program are equal to or more stringent than the applicable CLIA program requirements in 42 CFR part 493 (Laboratory Requirements). Subpart E of part 493 (Accreditation by a Private, Nonprofit Accreditation Organization or Exemption Under an Approved State Laboratory Program) specifies the requirements an accreditation organization must meet to be approved by CMS as an accreditation organization under CLIA.
In this notice, we approve the Joint Commission as an organization that may accredit laboratories for purposes of establishing its compliance with CLIA requirements for all specialty and subspecialty areas under CLIA. We have examined the initial Joint Commission application and all subsequent submissions to determine its accreditation program's equivalency with the requirements for approval of an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493. We have determined that the Joint Commission meets or exceeds the applicable CLIA requirements. We have also determined that the Joint Commission will ensure that its accredited laboratories will meet or exceed the applicable requirements in subparts H, I, J, K, M, Q, and the applicable sections of R. Therefore, we grant the Joint Commission approval as an accreditation organization under subpart E of part 493, for the period stated in the
The following describes the process used to determine that the Joint Commission accreditation program meets the necessary requirements to be approved by CMS and that, as such, CMS may approve the Joint Commission as an accreditation program with deeming authority under the CLIA program. The Joint Commission formally applied to CMS for approval as an accreditation organization under CLIA for all specialties and subspecialties under CLIA. In reviewing these materials, we reached the following determinations for each applicable part of the CLIA regulations:
The Joint Commission submitted its mechanism for monitoring compliance with all requirements equivalent to condition-level requirements, a list of all its current laboratories and the expiration date of their accreditation, and a detailed comparison of the individual accreditation requirements with the comparable condition-level requirements. The Joint Commission policies and procedures for oversight of laboratories performing laboratory testing for all CLIA specialties and subspecialties are equivalent to those of CLIA in the matters of inspection, monitoring proficiency testing (PT) performance, investigating complaints, and making PT information available. The Joint Commission's submitted requirements for monitoring and inspecting laboratories in the areas of accreditation organization, data management, the inspection process, procedures for removal or withdrawal of accreditation, notification requirements, and accreditation organization resources. The requirements of the accreditation programs submitted for approval are equal to or more stringent than the requirements of the CLIA regulations.
Our evaluation identified Joint Commission requirements pertaining to waived testing that are more stringent than the CLIA requirements. The Joint Commission waived testing requirements include the following:
• Defining the extent that waived test results are used in patient care.
• Identifying the personnel responsible for performing and supervising waived testing.
• Assuring that personnel performing waived testing have adequate, specific training and orientation to perform the testing and can demonstrate satisfactory levels of performance.
• Making certain that policies and procedures governing waived testing-related procedures are current and readily available.
• Conducting defined quality control checks.
• Maintaining quality control and test records.
The CLIA requirements at § 493.15 only require that a laboratory performing waived testing follow the manufacturer's instructions and obtain a certificate of waiver.
The Joint Commission requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at § 493.801 through § 493.865.
The Joint Commission requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at § 493.1100 through § 493.1105.
The Joint Commission requirements are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA requirements at § 493.1200 through § 493.1299. For instance, the Joint Commission has control procedure requirements for all waived complexity testing performed.
We have determined that Joint Commission requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at § 493.1403 through § 493.1495 for laboratories that perform moderate and high complexity testing.
We have determined that the Joint Commission requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at § 493.1771 through § 493.1780.
The Joint Commission meets the requirements of subpart R to the extent that it applies to accreditation organizations. The Joint Commission policy sets forth the actions the organization takes when laboratories it accredits do not comply with its requirements and standards for accreditation. When appropriate, the Joint Commission will deny, suspend, or revoke accreditation in a laboratory accredited by the Joint Commission and report that action to CMS within 30 days. The Joint Commission also provides an appeals process for laboratories that have had accreditation denied, suspended, or revoked.
We have determined that the Joint Commission laboratory enforcement and appeal policies are equal to or more stringent than the requirements of part 493 subpart R as they apply to accreditation organizations.
The Federal validation inspections of laboratories accredited by the Joint Commission may be conducted on a representative sample basis or in response to substantial allegations of noncompliance (that is, complaint inspections). The outcome of those validation inspections, performed by CMS or our agents, or the State survey agencies, will be our principal means for verifying that the laboratories accredited by the Joint Commission remain in compliance with CLIA requirements. This Federal monitoring is an ongoing process.
Our regulations provide that we may rescind the approval of an accreditation organization, such as that of the Joint Commission, for cause, before the end of the effective date of approval. If we determine that the Joint Commission has failed to adopt, maintain and enforce requirements that are equal to, or more stringent than, the CLIA requirements, or that systemic problems exist in its monitoring, inspection or enforcement processes, we may impose a probationary period, not to exceed 1 year, in which the Joint Commission would be allowed to address any identified issues. Should the Joint Commission be unable to address the identified issues within that timeframe, we may, in accordance with the applicable regulations, revoke the Joint Commission's deeming authority under CLIA.
Should circumstances result in our withdrawal of the Joint Commission's approval, we will publish a notice in the
This notice does not impose any information collection and record keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Consequently, it does not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the authority of the PRA. The requirements associated with the accreditation process for clinical laboratories under the CLIA program, codified in 42 CFR part 493 subpart E, are currently approved by OMB under OMB approval number 0938–0686.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 353 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263a).
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed notice.
This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (AOA/HFAP) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 25, 2012.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS–3264–PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
3.
4.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786–9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the section entitled
Barbara Easterling, (410) 786–0416, Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786–6899 or Cindy Melanson, (410) 786–0310.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1–800–743–3951.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act), requires that within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, we publish a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provides at least a 30-day public comment period. Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Act establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an ASC. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 416 specify the conditions that an ASC must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for ASCs.
Generally, in order to enter into an agreement, an ASC must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 416. Thereafter, the ASC is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative, however, to surveys by State agencies.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide us with reasonable assurance that the
The American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program's (AOA/HFAP) current term of approval for their ASC accreditation program expires October 23, 2012.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.8(a) require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and, ability to provide us with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of AOA/HFAP's request for continued approval of its ASC accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether AOA/HFPA's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage for ASCs.
AOA/HFAP submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its ASC accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on March 27, 2012. Under Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.8 (Federal review of accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of AOA/HFAP will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of AOA/HFAP's standards for an ASC as compared with CMS' ASC conditions for coverage.
• AOA/HFAP's survey process to determine the following:
+ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
+ The comparability of AOA/HFAP's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
• AOA/HFAP's processes and procedures for monitoring an ASC found out of compliance with AOA/HFAP's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when AOA/HFAP identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).
• AOA/HFAP's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
• AOA/HFAP's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
• The adequacy of AOA/HFAP's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
• AOA/HFAP's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
• AOA/HFAP's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
• AOA/HFAP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey, together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Proposed notice.
This proposed notice with comment period acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for hospices that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 25, 2012.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS–3266–PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786–7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Lillian Williams, (410) 786–8636. Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786–6899. Cindy Melanson, (410) 786–0310.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1–800–743–3951.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a hospice provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(dd) (1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a hospice. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 418 specify the conditions that a hospice must meet to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for hospice care.
Generally, to enter into an agreement, a hospice must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 418. Thereafter, the hospice is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. However, there is an alternative to surveys by State agencies.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program will be deemed to have met the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide us with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.4 and § 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at § 488.8(d)(3) require accrediting organizations to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or as we determine.
Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP's) current term of approval for their hospice accreditation program expires November 20, 2012.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.8(a) require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's: Requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide us with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of CHAP's request for continued approval of its hospice accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether CHAP's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for participation for hospices.
CHAP submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its hospice accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on
• The equivalency of CHAP's standards for a hospice as compared with CMS' hospice conditions of participation.
• CHAP's survey process to determine the following:
+ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
+ The comparability of CHAP's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
• CHAP's processes and procedures for monitoring a hospice found out of compliance with CHAP's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when CHAP identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).
• CHAP's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
• CHAP's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
• The adequacy of CHAP's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
• CHAP's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
• CHAP's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
• CHAP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey, together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this proposed notice was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final notice.
This notice announces our decision to renew the Medicare Advantage “deeming authority” of the Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC) for Health Maintenance Organizations and Preferred Provider Organizations for a term of 6 years. This new term of approval would begin May 26, 2012, and end May 25, 2018.
This final notice is effective May 26, 2012 through May 25, 2018.
Caroline Baker, (410) 786–0116; or Edgar Gallardo, (410) 786–0361.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services through a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization that contracts with CMS. The regulations specifying the Medicare requirements that must be met for a Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) to enter into a contract with CMS are located at 42 CFR part 422. These regulations implement Part C of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act), which specifies the services that an MAO must provide and the requirements that the organization must meet to be an MA contractor. Other relevant sections of the Act are Parts A and B of Title XVIII and Part A of Title XI pertaining to the provision of services by Medicare-certified providers and suppliers. Generally, for an entity to be an MA organization, the organization must be licensed by the State as a riskbearing organization as set forth in part 422.
As a method of assuring compliance with certain Medicare requirements, an MA organization may choose to become accredited by a CMS-approved accrediting organization (AO). Once accredited by such a CMS-approved AO, we deem the MA organization to be compliant in one or more of six requirements set forth in section 1852(e)(4)(B) of the Act. For an AO to be able to “deem” an MA plan as compliant with these MA requirements, the AO must prove to CMS that its standards are at least as stringent as Medicare requirements. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) or preferred provider organizations (PPOs) accredited by an approved AO may receive, at their request, “deemed” status for CMS requirements with respect to the following six MA criteria: Quality Improvement; Antidiscrimination; Access to Services; Confidentiality and Accuracy of Enrollee Records; Information on Advanced Directives; and Provider Participation Rules. (
The Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC) was approved as a CMS approved accreditation organization for MA deeming of HMOs on May 26, 2006, and that term will expire on May 26, 2012. On December 9, 2011, URAC submitted an application to renew its deeming authority. On that same date, URAC submitted materials requested from CMS which included updates and/or changes to items set out in Federal regulations at § 422.158(a) that are prerequisites for receiving approval of its accreditation program from CMS, and which were furnished to CMS by URAC as a part of their renewal applications for HMOs and PPOs.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of deeming applications is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us with 210 calendar days after the date of receipt of an application to complete our survey activities and application review process. Within 60 days of receiving a completed application, we must publish a notice in the
In the March 30, 2012,
• The types of MA plans that it would review as part of its accreditation process.
• A detailed comparison of the organization's accreditation requirements and standards with the Medicare requirements (for example, a crosswalk).
• Detailed information about the organization's survey process, including the following—
++ Frequency of surveys and whether surveys are announced or unannounced.
++ Copies of survey forms, and guidelines and instructions to surveyors.
++ Descriptions of—
• Detailed information about the individuals who perform surveys for the accreditation organization, including the following—
++ The size and composition of accreditation survey teams for each type of plan reviewed as part of the accreditation process;
++ The education and experience requirements surveyors must meet;
++ The content and frequency of the in-service training provided to survey personnel;
++ The evaluation systems used to monitor the performance of individual surveyors and survey teams; and
++ The organization's policies and practice with respect to the participation, in surveys or in the accreditation decision process by an individual who is professionally or financially affiliated with the entity being surveyed.
• A description of the organization's data management and analysis system with respect to its surveys and accreditation decisions, including the kinds of reports, tables, and other displays generated by that system.
• A description of the organization's procedures for responding to and investigating complaints against accredited organizations, including policies and procedures regarding coordination of these activities with appropriate licensing bodies and ombudsmen programs.
• A description of the organization's policies and procedures with respect to the withholding or removal of accreditation for failure to meet the accreditation organization's standards or requirements, and other actions the organization takes in response to noncompliance with its standards and requirements.
• A description of all types (for example, full, partial) and categories (for example, provisional, conditional, temporary) of accreditation offered by the organization, the duration of each type and category of accreditation and a statement identifying the types and categories that would serve as a basis for accreditation if CMS approves the accreditation organization.
• A list of all currently accredited MA organizations and the type, category, and expiration date of the accreditation held by each of them.
• A list of all full and partial accreditation surveys scheduled to be performed by the accreditation organization as requested by CMS.
• The name and address of each person with an ownership or control interest in the accreditation organization.
• CMS also considers URAC's past performance in the deeming program and results of recent deeming validation reviews, or look-behind audits conducted as part of continuing Federal oversight of the deeming program under § 422.157(d).
In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the March 30, 2012 proposed notice (77 FR 19288) also solicited public comments regarding whether URAC's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare conditions of participation as an accrediting organization for MA HMOs and PPOs. We received no public comments in response to our proposed notice.
We compared the standards and survey process contained in URAC's application with the Medicare conditions for accreditation. Our review and evaluation of URAC's application for continued CMS-approval were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, and yielded the following:
• URAC amended its crosswalk to ensure current URAC standards are clearly crosswalked to the following regulatory requirements: §§ 422.128; 422.206(b)(2); 422.112(a)(1); 422.112(a)(2); 422.112(a)(8); 422.112(b)(3); 422.112(b)(4)(iii); 422.112(b)(5); 422.118; 422.152; 422.202(b); and 422.202(c).
• To meet the amendments made at § 422.156 by the final rule published in the April 15, 2011
Based on the review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we have determined that URAC's accreditation program requirements
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Section 1865 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bb).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the second semi-annual meeting of the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP, the Panel), (the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) Panel) for 2012. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (the Administrator) on the clinical integrity of the APC groups and their associated weights, and hospital outpatient therapeutic supervision issues.
• Monday, August 27, 2012, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.
• Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.
• Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.
Those who do not preregister may not be able to attend the meeting since seating space is limited).
Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept written comments and or presentations by FAX, nor can we print written comments and presentations received by email for dissemination at the meeting.
Presentations must be based on the scope of the Panel designated in the Charter. Any presentations outside of the scope of this Panel will be returned and/or amendments requested. Unrelated topics include, but are not limited to, the conversion factor, charge compression, revisions to the cost report, pass-through payments, correct coding, new technology applications (including supporting information/documentation), provider payment adjustments, supervision of hospital outpatient diagnostic services and the types of practitioners that are permitted to supervise hospital outpatient services. The Panel may not recommend that services be designated as nonsurgical extended duration therapeutic services.
All presentations will be considered public information and may be posted on the CMS web site and will be shared with the public. Presenters should not send pictures of patients in any of the documents (unless their faces have been blocked out) or include any examples with patient identifiable information.
In order to consider presentation and/or comment requests, we will need to receive the following information:
1. A hardcopy of your presentation; only hardcopy comments and presentations can be reproduced for public dissemination. We note that all presentations are limited to 5 minutes per individual or organization.
2. An email copy of your presentations sent to the Designated Federal Official's (DFO) mailbox,
3. Form CMS–20017 with complete contact information that includes name, address, phone, and email addresses for all presenters and a contact that can answer any questions and or provide revisions that are requested for the presentation.
○ Presenters must clearly explain the action(s) that they are requesting CMS to take in the appropriate section of the form. A presenter's relationship to the organization that they represent must also be clearly listed.
○ The form is now available through the CMS Forms Web site. The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for linking to this form is as follows:
For inquiries about the Panel, contact the DFO: Raymond Bulls, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop C4–03–12, Woodlawn, MD 21244–1850. Phone: (410) 786–7267.
Mail hardcopies and email copies to the following addresses: Raymond Bulls, DFO, CMS, CM, HAPC, DOC—HOPS Panel, 7500 Security Blvd., Woodlawn, MD 21244–1850, Mail Stop C4–03–12,
We recommend that you advise couriers of the following information: When delivering hardcopies of presentations to CMS, if no one answers at the above phone number, call (410) 786–4532 or (410) 786–7267.
You may also search information about the Panel and its membership in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) database at the following URL:
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary) is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel regarding the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and relative payment weights. The Panel (which was formerly known as the Advisory Panel on Ambulatory Payment Classification Groups) is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), to set forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.
The Charter provides that the Panel shall meet up to 3 times annually. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS).
The agenda for the August 2012 meeting will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics as designated in the Panel's Charter:
• Addressing whether procedures within an APC group are similar both clinically and in terms of resource use.
• Evaluating APC group weights.
• Reviewing the packaging of OPPS services and costs, including the methodology and the impact on APC groups and payment.
• Removing procedures from the inpatient list for payment under the OPPS.
• Using single and multiple procedure claims data for CMS' determination of APC group weights.
• Addressing other technical issues concerning APC group structure.
• Recommending the appropriate supervision level (general, direct, or personal) for individual hospital outpatient therapeutic services.
The subject matter before the Panel will be limited to these and related topics. Unrelated topics include, but are not limited to, the conversion factor, charge compression, revisions to the cost report, pass-through payments, correct coding, new technology applications (including supporting information/documentation), provider payment adjustments, hospital outpatient supervision of diagnostic services and the types of practitioners who are permitted to supervise hospital outpatient services.
The Panel may not recommend that services be designated as nonsurgical extended duration therapeutic services.
The Panel may use data collected or developed by entities and organizations, other than the DHHS and CMS in conducting its review. We recommend organizations submit data for the Panel's and CMS staff's review. The Agenda will be posted on the CMS Web site prior to the meeting.
In addition to formal oral presentations, which are limited to 5 minutes per individual or organization, there will be an opportunity during the meeting for public oral comments, which will be limited to 1 minute for each individual and a total of 3 minutes per organization.
The meeting is open to the public; however, attendance is limited to space available. Priority will be given to those who pre-register, and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.
Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on Federal property, must email the DFO to register in advance no later than 5 p.m. (EDT), August 17, 2012. A confirmation will be sent to the requester(s) by return email within 10 days of the meeting.
In your email request for registration, include the following information:
• Name(s) of attendee(s).
• Title(s).
• Organization.
• Office address, including city and state.
• Email address(es).
• Telephone number(s).
The following are the security, building, and parking guidelines:
• Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on attendance list by the prescribed date.
• Individuals who are not pre registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.
• Attendees must present valid photo identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.
• Security measures include inspection of vehicles, inside and out, at the entrance to the grounds.
• All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.
• All items brought into CMS including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones, are subject to physical inspection.
• The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes each day.
• All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first-floor levels in the Central Building.
• The main-entrance guards will issue parking permits and instructions upon arrival at the building.
Individuals requiring sign-language interpretation or other special accommodations must send a request for these services to the DFO by 5 p.m. (EDT), Friday, August 17, 2012.
The Panel's recommendations at any Panel meeting generally are not final until they have been reviewed and approved by the Panel on the last day of the meeting, before the final adjournment. These recommendations will be posted to our web site after the meeting.
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
The purpose of this data collection is to assist the Children's Bureau in responding to the government wide performance effort to collect aggregate data over time to assess program progress on discretionary funded programs. The Performance Measurement ON–Line Tool (PMOTOOL) will focus on quantifiable outcome measures that are directly related to the expected social impact or public benefit of each federal program. These measurable outcomes will serve as evidence that the federally funded programs are making progress toward achieving broad, legislated program goals.
Annual Burden Estimated:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products.” This guidance describes FDA's current policies and recommendations with respect to Agency meetings with tobacco manufacturers, importers, researchers, and/or investigators relating to their plans to conduct research to inform the regulation of tobacco products, or support the development or marketing of tobacco products. The guidance is intended to assist persons seeking a meeting with FDA to discuss the research and development of tobacco products. This guidance does not pertain to other types of meetings or meeting requests with Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) staff.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) by July 24, 2012 (see section III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 in this document).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance entitled “Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products” to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850–3229. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may be sent. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
With regard to the guidance: Gerie Voss, Center for Tobacco Products, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,
With regard to the proposed collection of information: Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–5156,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products.” This guidance is intended to assist tobacco manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators, and their representatives who seek meetings with staff of FDA's CTP relating to their plans to conduct research to inform the regulation of tobacco products or support the development or marketing of tobacco products. This guidance does not pertain to other types of meetings or meeting requests with CTP staff.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111–31) offers tobacco product manufacturers several pathways to obtain an order from FDA to authorize the marketing of a tobacco product before it may be introduced or delivered into interstate commerce. To provide assistance with these pathways to market particular products, FDA will meet with tobacco product manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators (or their representatives) where appropriate.
This guidance is intended to assist persons who seek guidance relating to their research to inform the regulation of tobacco products, or to support the development or marketing of tobacco products. In the guidance, the Agency discusses, among other things:
• What information FDA recommends persons include in such a meeting request,
• How and when to submit such a request, and
• What information FDA recommends persons submit prior to such a meeting.
FDA is issuing this guidance as a level 2 guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulations (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on “Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden on the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This guidance is intended to assist persons seeking to have a meeting with FDA on the research and development of tobacco products. This guidance document discusses, among other things: What information FDA recommends that persons include in a meeting request, how and when to submit a request, and what information FDA recommends that persons submit prior to the meeting.
This guidance describes two collections of information: (1) The submission of a meeting request containing certain information and (2) the submission of an information package in advance of the meeting. The purpose of this proposed information collection is to allow FDA to conduct meetings with tobacco manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators in an effective and efficient manner.
Section IV.E of the guidance sets forth FDA's recommendations for materials to be included in a request for a meeting with FDA to discuss the research and development of tobacco products. Under the guidance, FDA recommends that the following information be included in the meeting request:
1. Product name and FDA-assigned Submission Tracking Number (if applicable);
2. Product category (e.g., cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, etc.) (if applicable);
3. Product use (indicate for consumer use or for further manufacturing);
4. Contact information for individual or company requesting the meeting;
5. The type of meeting being requested;
6. A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting, which could include a discussion of the types of studies or data to be discussed at the meeting, the general nature of the primary questions to be asked, and where the meeting fits in the overall product development plans;
7. A draft list of the specific objectives/outcomes expected from the meeting;
8. A preliminary proposed agenda, including estimated amounts of time needed for each agenda item and designated speaker(s);
9. A draft list of specific questions, grouped by discipline;
10. A list of all individuals (including titles and responsibilities) who will attend the meeting on behalf of the tobacco product manufacturer, importer, researcher, or investigator;
11. The approximate date on which supporting documentation (i.e., the meeting information package) likely will be received by FDA; and
12. Suggested dates and times for the meeting (note that generally a meeting will be scheduled for approximately 1 to 1.5 hours).
This information will be used by the Agency to: (1) Determine the utility of the meeting, (2) identify Agency staff necessary to discuss proposed agenda items, and (3) schedule the meeting.
An individual submitting a meeting information package to FDA in advance of a meeting should provide summary information relevant to the product and supplementary information pertaining to any issue raised by the individual or
1. Chemistry, manufacturing, and control data summary (as applicable);
2. Preclinical data summary (as applicable);
3. Clinical data summary (as applicable);
4. Behavioral and product use data summary (as applicable);
5. User and nonuser perception data summary (as applicable); and
6. Investigational plans for studies and surveillance of the tobacco product, including a summary of proposed study protocols containing the following information (as applicable):
a. Study objective(s),
b. Study hypotheses,
c. Study design,
d. Study population (inclusion/exclusion criteria, comparison group(s)),
e. Human subject protection information, including Institutional Review Board information,
f. Primary and secondary endpoints (definition and success criteria),
g. Sample size calculation,
h. Data collection procedures,
i. Duration of followup and baseline and followup assessments, and
j. Data analysis plan(s).
The purpose of the information package is to provide Agency staff the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including the review of relevant data concerning the product. In the Agency's experience, reviewing such information is critical to achieving a productive meeting. For the information that was previously submitted in the meeting request, the information package should provide updated information that reflects the most current and accurate information available.
The respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators of tobacco products who seek to meet with FDA to discuss their plans regarding the development or marketing of a tobacco product.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's estimate of the number of respondents for meeting requests in table 1 of this document is based on the number of meeting requests to be received over the next 3 years. In the first year of this collection, FDA estimates that 50 preapplication meetings will be requested. In year 2, FDA estimates that 100 meetings will be requested, especially as applications and reports for substantial equivalence, etc., are received and acted upon. Once the public knows more about submitting these applications in year 3, the request for meetings is expected to drop back to the year 1 rate of 50 per year. Thus, FDA estimates the number of manufacturers, importers, researchers, and investigators who are expected to submit meeting request requests in table 1 of this document to be 67 (50 year 1 requests + 100 year 2 requests + 50 year 3 requests divided by 3). The hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information recommended by this guidance to be submitted with a meeting request is estimated to be approximately 10 hours each, and the total burden hours are 670 hours (10 hours preparation/mailing times 67 average respondents per year). Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects it will take respondents this amount of time to prepare, gather, copy, and submit brief statements about the product and a description of the purpose and details of the meeting.
FDA's estimate of the number of respondents for compiling meeting information packages in table 1 of this document is based on 67 respondents each preparing copies of their information package and submitting them to FDA, for a total of 1,206 hours annually. The hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information package as recommended by the guidance, is estimated to be approximately 18 hours per information package. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects that it will take respondents 1,206 hours of time (67 respondents times 18 hours) to gather, copy, and submit brief statements about the product, a description of the details of the anticipated meeting, and data and information that generally would already have been generated for the planned research and/or product development.
The total number of burden hours for this collection of information is 1,876 hours (67 hours to prepare and submit meeting requests and 1,206 hours to prepare and submit information packages).
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of this guidance document at
Privacy Office, DHS.
Notice Announcing Public Workshop.
The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office will host a public workshop, “Privacy Compliance Workshop.”
The workshop will be held on June 20, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The workshop will be held in the conference center at the Federal Trade Commission Building located at 601 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Rebecca Richards, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528; by telephone 703–235–0780; by facsimile 703–235–0442; or by email at
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Privacy Office will conduct a free public workshop open to all federal employees and contractors to provide in-depth training on the privacy compliance process at DHS. The morning session will consist of overview presentations, including the privacy compliance fundamentals, privacy and data security, and the privacy compliance life cycle. A learning lunch will provide attendees with the opportunity to interact with compliance experts at DHS. The afternoon sessions will cover advanced presentations, including the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Compliance Reviews, and program case studies.
All attendees who are employed by a federal agency will be required to show their federal agency employee photo identification badge to enter the building. Attendees who do not possess a federal agency employee photo identification badge will need to show a form of government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, in order to verify their previously-provided registration information.
The Privacy Office will only use your name for the security purposes of this specific workshop and to contact you in the event of a change to the workshop.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Vermont (FEMA–4022–DR), dated September 1, 2011, 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, in a letter dated May 16, 2012, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Vermont resulting from Tropical Storm Irene during the period of August 27 to September 2, 2011, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”).
Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 1, 2011, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible costs.
This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before August 23, 2012.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1255, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
This submission is to request a new collection for the reporting burden associated with registration requirements that Rural Housing Stability Program (RHSP) applicants will be expected to complete prior to actual application. This submission is limited to the reporting burden under the RHSP program, created through the HEARTH Act. The statutory provisions and the implementing interim regulations that govern RHSP require these registration data elements.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2506-New) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the
This notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2528–New) and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone (202) 402–3400, (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard at
Ann Marie Oliva, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–16590. (This is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This submission is limited to the reporting burden under the RHSP program, created through the HEARTH Act. To see the regulations for the new RHSP program and applicable supplementary documents, visit HUD's Homeless Resource Exchange page at
The RHSP Application will be completed by many of the HUD identified 230 rural counties and will require approximately 141 hours to complete. The application process will occur once per year after the release of the annual RHSP notice of funding availability. The total number of hours needed for all reporting per year is 32,319 hours.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
In accordance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–05, approved February 17, 2009) (Recovery Act), and implementing guidance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this notice advises that certain exceptions to the Buy American requirement of the Recovery Act have been determined applicable for work using Capital Fund Recovery Formula and Competition (CFRFC) grant funds. Specifically, an exception was granted to the City of Phoenix Housing Department for the purchase and installation of microwave ovens for the Marcos de Niza project.
Donald J. LaVoy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Office of Field Operations, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4112, Washington, DC, 20410–4000, telephone number 202–402–8500 (this is not a toll-free number); or Dominique G. Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC, 20410–4000, telephone number 202–402–8500 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
Section 1605(a) of the Recovery Act provides that none of the funds appropriated or made available by the Recovery Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. Section 1605(b) provides that the Buy American requirement shall not apply in any case or category in which the head of a Federal department or agency finds that: (1) Applying the Buy American requirement would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of satisfactory quality, or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. Section 1605(c) provides that if the head of a Federal department or agency makes a determination pursuant to section 1605(b), the head of the department or agency shall publish a detailed written justification in the
In accordance with section 1605(c) of the Recovery Act and OMB's implementing guidance published on April 23, 2009 (74 FR 18449), this notice advises the public that, on May 3, 2012, upon request of the City of Phoenix Housing Department, HUD granted an exception to applicability of the Buy American requirements with respect to work, using CFRFC grant funds, in connection with the Marcos de Niza project. The exception was granted by HUD on the basis that the relevant manufactured goods (microwave ovens) are not produced in the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of satisfactory quality.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800–927–7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B–17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1–800–927–7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses:
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior (Interior) announces a tribal consultation meeting regarding the United States Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, to be held at the National Congress of American Indians mid-year Conference June 17–20, 2012, in Lincoln, Nebraska. In addition to this meeting, Interior officials welcome the opportunity to speak and meet in person with interested tribes in the months of June and July regarding this initiative. Interior also invites tribes to participate in upcoming USEITI public listening sessions and workshops in May and June.
Submit comments on the stakeholder assessment by June 29, 2012. We will hold listening sessions and workshops on the following dates:
• Anchorage, Alaska Public Listening Session, 6 p.m.–8 p.m. ADT, May 30, 2012
• Public Webinar, 1 p.m.–3 p.m. EDT, June 1, 2012
• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Public Listening Session, 1 p.m.–3 p.m. EDT, June 11, 2012
• New Orleans, Louisiana Public Listening Session, 1 p.m.–3 p.m. CDT, June 12, 2012
• Washington, DC Public Workshop, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. EDT, June 22, 2012
Submit comments to: Saman Hussain at telephone number 202.254.5508, or by email at
Saman Hussain at telephone number 202.254.5508, or by email at
In 2011, President Obama announced the United States' commitment to the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Given the significant role that the Department of the Interior plays in collecting revenue for resource extraction on federal lands, the President named Secretary Ken Salazar as the senior U.S. official responsible for implementing of the United States Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (USEITI). Currently, the Federal Government collects revenues on behalf of some tribes and individual allottees (amounting to $538 million in the Federal Fiscal Year (ending on September 30, 2011) and then distributes the revenues through others.
In February, we sent a Dear Tribal Leader letter, inviting tribes to provide initial comment on USEITI and formation of the Multi-Stakeholder Group responsible for overseeing its implementation. Later that month, we also published a notice in the
The CBI stakeholder assessment is available online at
For further information on EITI, please visit the USEITI Web page at
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Office of the Secretary is announcing that the Secretarial Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform (the Commission) will hold a public meeting on June 11 and 12, 2012. The Commission has gathered input and information from two public meetings and has requested feedback on five questions regarding the development of a comprehensive evaluation of how the Department of the Interior manages and administers its trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The five questions can be found at
The Commission's public meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. on June 11, 2012, and will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. on June 12, 2012. Attendance is open to the public, but limited space is available. Members of the public who wish to attend should respond by June 7, 2012, to:
The public meeting will be held at the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, 4400 Masthead Street NE., Room 145, Albuquerque, NM 87109. The meeting will be held in a federal facility. We encourage you to respond to
The Designated Federal Officer, Lizzie Marsters, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Room 6118, Washington, DC 20240; or email to
As part of President Obama's commitment to fulfilling this nation's trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Secretary of the Interior appointed five members to serve on the Secretarial Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform, established under Secretarial Order No. 3292, dated December 8, 2009. The Commission plays a key role in the Department's ongoing efforts to empower Indian nations and strengthen government-to-government relationships.
The Commission will complete a comprehensive evaluation of the Department's management and administration of the trust assets within a two-year period and offer recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how to improve in the future. The Commission will:
(1) Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Department's management and administration of the trust administration system;
(2) Review the Department's provision of services to trust beneficiaries;
(3) Review input from the public, interested parties, and trust beneficiaries, which should involve conducting a number of regional listening sessions;
(4) Consider the nature and scope of necessary audits of the Department's trust administration system;
(5) Recommend options to the Secretary to improve the Department's management and administration of the trust administration system based on information obtained from the Commission's activities, including whether legislative or regulatory changes are necessary to implement the improvements; and
(6) Consider the provisions of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
The following items will be on the agenda:
• Suggested topics for next meeting
• Review action items and meeting accomplishments
• Closing blessing, adjourn
Written comments may be sent to the Designated Federal Officer listed in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to revise the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge (Refuge). An environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating effects of various CCP alternatives will also be prepared. We provide this notice in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and our CCP policy to advise the public, other Federal and State agencies, and Tribes of our intentions and to obtain public comments, suggestions, and information on the scope of issues to consider in the planning process.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 24, 2012. We will hold public meetings to begin the CCP planning process in various communities in the vicinity of the Refuge. Meeting dates, times, and locations will be announced in news releases, planning updates, and on our Web site:
Information about the Refuge is available on our Web site
Aaron Collins, (541) 947–3315, ext. 223.
With this notice, we initiate our process for revising the Refuge CCP. This notice complies with our CCP policy and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), to (1) advise other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and the public of our intention to conduct detailed planning on this refuge and (2) obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to consider in the EIS and during development of the CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCPs at least every 15 years in accordance with the
Each unit of the Refuge System was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the Refuge System mission and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the Refuge System.
Our CCP process provides participation opportunities for Tribal, State, and local governments; agencies; organizations; and the public. At this time we encourage input in the form of issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the future management of the Refuge.
We will conduct the environmental review of this project and develop an EIS in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and our policies and procedures for compliance with those laws and regulations.
The Refuge's approved boundary encompasses 277,893 acres of sagebrush steppe uplands in Lake County, Oregon; of this, the Service owns approximately 270,686 acres. The Refuge was established for the following purposes.
“* * * as a range and breeding ground for antelope and other species of wildlife * * *” Executive Antelope Range (OR) Order 7523, dated Dec. 21, 1936;
“* * * for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act);
“* * * for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources * * *” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4);
“* * * for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services * * *” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956); and
“* * * suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species * * *” 16 U.S.C. 460k–1.
The Refuge encompasses a massive fault block ridge known as Hart Mountain, which ascends abruptly almost three-quarters of a mile above the Warner Valley and then extends along nearly the entire western edge of the Refuge in a series of rugged cliffs, steep slopes, and knife-like ridges. The eastern slope descends gradually in a series of hills and a broad, gentle plain. Refuge habitats primarily include various sagebrush uplands interspersed with meadows, seasonal shallow playas, and pothole lakes. Aspen line the few perennial streams, and western juniper cover steep canyon slopes along the mountain escarpment. The Refuge provides important but seasonal habitat for its signature species, the American pronghorn antelope, and also for mule deer, bighorn sheep, and a wide variety of raptors and smaller migratory birds. The Refuge also provides habitat for year-round resident wildlife, which includes a full assemblage of sagebrush steppe mammals, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and birds, and provides some of the most intact and important remaining habitat for the imperiled greater sage-grouse.
The following preliminary issues, concerns, and opportunities have been identified for the Refuge, and may be evaluated in the CCP. Additional issues may be identified during public scoping.
•
•
•
•
•
The following issue, previously addressed, will not be considered in the CCP.
•
We will give the public an opportunity to provide input at public meetings. We will hold a meeting on May 31, 2012, at 6 p.m. at Daly Middle School, 220 South H Street, Lakeview, Oregon. We will hold another meeting on June 4, 2012, at 6 p.m. at Plush Elementary School in Plush, Oregon. These public open houses will be announced in press releases, planning updates, and on our Web site:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Tribal Liquor Ordinance No. 2008–01 of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake. The Ordinance regulates and controls the possession, sale and consumption of liquor within the Indian Country of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake. The land is trust land and this Ordinance allows for the possession and sale of alcoholic beverages within the jurisdiction of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake. This Ordinance will increase the ability of the tribal government to control the distribution and possession of liquor within their jurisdiction, and at the same time will provide an important source of revenue, the strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of tribal services.
Sophia Torres, Tribal Government Specialist, Pacific Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, Phone: (916)978–6073; Fax: (916)916–6099: or De Springer, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., MS–4513–MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 513–7640.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83–277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Habermatolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council duly adopted the Tribal Liquor Ordinance No 2008–01 of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake by Resolution No. 04–12–03 on April 16, 2012.
The Tribal Liquor Ordinance No 2008–01 of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake shall read as follows:
This Ordinance shall be known as the “Liquor Ordinance of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake.”
This Liquor Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953 (Pub. L. 83–277, and 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. section 1161), as interpreted by Rice v. Renner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983) and the Constitution of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Tribe”), approved on May 12, 2004 and the Tribe's inherent sovereign authority.
The purpose of this Liquor Ordinance is to regulate and to control the possession and sale of liquor on lands within the jurisdiction of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake. The enactment of a tribal ordinance governing liquor possession and sale on Tribal Lands will increase the ability of the Tribal Government to control liquor distribution and possession, and at the same time will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of Tribal Government services.
This Ordinance applies to all lands in which the Habematolel Pomo Of Upper Lake holds an ownership interest and which are defined as Indian country under 18 U.S.C. 1151. At the time of enacting this Ordinance, the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake do not have an ownership interest in any lands defined by 18 U.S.C.1154(c) as fee-patented land in a non-Indian community or rights-of-ways which run through Tribal lands. This Ordinance is in conformity with California State alcohol laws as required by 18 U.S.C. 1161.
As used in this Liquor Ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
A. “Alcohol” means that substance known as ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, or spirit of wine which is commonly produced by the fermentation or distillation of grain, starch, molasses, or sugar, or other substances including all dilutions of this substance.
B. “Alcoholic Beverage” is synonymous with the term “Liquor” as defined in Letter F of this Article.
C. “Bar” means any establishment with special space and accommodations for sale by the glass and for consumption on the premises of any liquor or alcoholic beverage, as herein defined.
D. “Beer” means any alcoholic beverage obtained by the fermentation or any infusion or decoction of barley, malt, hops, or any other similar product, or any combination thereof in water, and includes ale, porter, brown, stout, lager beer, small beer, and strong beer but does not include sake, known as Japanese rice wine.
E. “Executive Council” as used herein means the body authorized by the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Constitution to promulgate all tribal ordinances and regulations.
E. “General Membership” means the general membership of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake which is composed
F. “Liquor” includes the four varieties of liquor herein defined (Alcohol, Spirits, Wine, and Beer), and all fermented spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor or combination thereof, and mixed liquor, or otherwise intoxicating; and every liquid or solid or semisolid or other substance, patented or not, containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer, and all drinks or drinkable liquids and all preparations or mixtures capable of human consumption and any liquid, semisolid, solid, or other substance, which contain more than one percent of alcohol by weight shall be conclusively deemed to be intoxicating.
G. “Liquor License” the license authorized to be issued to those who have met the qualifications of this Ordinance at Article VIII, which grants a licensee the ability to sell Alcohol or Liquor on Tribal Lands.
H. “Liquor Store” means any store at which liquor is sold and, for the purposes of this Liquor Ordinance, includes stores only a portion of which are devoted to sale of liquor or beer.
I. “Malt Liquor” means Beer, strong beer, ale, stout, and porter.
J. “Package” means any container or receptacle used for holding liquor.
K. “Public Place” includes state or county or Tribal or federal highways or roads; buildings and grounds used for school purposes; public dance halls and grounds adjacent thereto; soft drink establishment; public buildings; public meeting halls; lobbies, halls and dining rooms of hotels, restaurants, theater, gaming facilities, entertainment centers, store garages, and filling stations which are open to and/or are generally used by the public and to which the public is permitted to have unrestricted access; public conveyances of all kinds of character; and all other places of like or similar nature to which the general public has unrestricted right of access, and which are generally used by the public. For the purpose of this Liquor Ordinance, “Public Place” shall also include any establishment other than a single family home which is designed for or may be used by more than just the owner of the establishment.
L. “Sale” and “Sell” include exchange, barter, and traffic and also include the selling or supplying or distributing by any means whatsoever, of liquor, or of any liquid known or described as beer or by any name whatsoever commonly used to describe malt or brewed liquor or wine by any person to any person.
M. “Spirits” means any beverage which contains alcohol obtained by distillation including wines exceeding seventeen percent of alcohol by weight.
N. “Tribe” means the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake.
O. “Tribal Designee” is a person designated by the majority of the Executive Council to fulfill a specific task pursuant to this Liquor Ordinance.
P. “Tribal Land” means any land held in trust by the United States for the Tribe as a whole including any such land that is leased by the Tribe in trust or lands that may be leased by the Tribe to another party.
Q. “Liquor Trust Account” means the account designated by the Executive Council for deposit of proceeds from any tax or fee levied by the Executive Council and relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages.
R. “Taxpayer” is the licensee who is obligated to pay taxes from the sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to this Liquor Ordinance.
S. “Trust Agent” means the Executive Council (see “Executive Council”) or their designee.
T. “Wine” means any alcoholic beverage obtained by fermentation of fruits (grapes, berries, apples, etc.) or other agricultural product containing sugar, to which any saccharine substances may have been added before, during or after fermentation, and containing not more than seventeen percent of alcohol by weight, including sweet wines fortified with wine spirits such as port, sherry, muscatel and angelica, not exceeding seventeen percent of alcohol by weight.
a. To publish and enforce the rules and regulations governing the sale, manufacture, and distribution of Alcoholic Beverages on Tribal Lands.
b. To employ managers, accountants, security personnel, inspectors, and such other persons as shall be reasonably necessary to allow the Executive Council to perform its functions; all such employees shall be Tribal employees;
c. To issue licenses permitting the sale or manufacture or distribution of liquor on Tribal Lands;
d. To hold hearings on violations of this Liquor Ordinance or for the issuance or revocation of licenses hereunder pursuant to Section VI;
e. To bring suit in the appropriate court to enforce this Liquor Ordinance as necessary;
f. To determine and seek damages for violation of this Liquor Ordinance;
g. To make such reports to the General Membership; as may be required herein;
h. To collect taxes and fees levied or set by the Executive Council, and to keep accurate records, books and accounts; and
i. To exercise such other powers as are necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance and as may be defined in the Tribe's Constitution, Article X, Sections 1 and 2.
a. Satisfactory proof that the applicant is or will be duly licensed by the State of California to sell alcoholic beverages;
b. Satisfactory proof that the applicant is of good moral character and reputation and that the applicant is financially responsible;
c. The description of the premises in which the alcoholic beverages are to be sold and proof that the applicant is the owner of such premises or the lessee of such premises for at least the term of the license;
d. Agreement by the applicant to accept and abide by all conditions of the Tribal license;
e. Payment of a fee established from time to time by the Executive Council. Said fee is established initially at $250.00 annually but can be changed by Executive Council Resolution at any time;
f. Satisfactory proof that neither the applicant, nor the applicant's spouse, nor any principal owner, officer, shareholder, or director of the applicant, if an entity, has ever been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude as defined by the laws of the State of California;
g. Satisfactory proof that notice of the application has been posted in a prominent, noticeable place on the premises where alcoholic beverages are to be sold for at least thirty (30) days prior to consideration by the Executive Council and has been published at least twice in a local newspaper serving the community that may be affected by the license as the Executive Council may authorize. The notice shall state the date, time, and place when the application shall be considered by the Executive Council pursuant to Section 2 of this ordinance.
a. The license shall be for an initial term not to exceed one (1) year and may be extended up to 5 years at the discretion of the Executive Council.
b. The licensee shall at all times maintain an orderly, clean, and neat establishment, both inside and outside the licensed premises.
c. The licensed premises shall be subject to patrol by Tribal law enforcement personnel and such other law enforcement officials as may be authorized under Federal, State, or Tribal law.
d. The licensed premises shall be open to inspection by duly authorized Tribal Designee at all times during the regular business hours.
e. Subject to the provisions of subsection “g” of this section, no Liquor or intoxicating beverages shall be sold, served, disposed of, delivered, or given to any person, or consumed on the licensed premises except in conformity with the hours and days prescribed by the laws of the State of California, and in accordance with the hours enacted by the Executive Council, provided that the licensed premises shall not operate or open earlier, or operate or close later, than is permitted by the laws of the State of California.
f. No Liquor shall be sold within 200 feet of a polling place on Tribal, State or Federal, Election days, or when a referendum is held by the Tribe, and including special days of observation as designated by the Executive Council.
g. All acts and transactions under authority of the Tribal Liquor License shall be in conformity with the laws of the State of California, with this Liquor Ordinance, and with any Tribal liquor license issued pursuant to this Liquor Ordinance.
h. No person under the age permitted under the laws of the State of California shall be sold, served, delivered, given, or allowed to consume Alcoholic Beverages in the licensed establishment or area.
i. There shall be no discrimination in the operations under the Tribal Liquor License by reason of race, color, gender, creed, religion or sexual preference.
Section 5. License Not a Property Right. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Liquor Ordinance, a Tribal liquor license is a mere permit for a fixed duration of time. A Tribal liquor license shall not be deemed a property right or vested right of any kind, nor shall the granting of a Tribal liquor license give rise to a presumption of legal entitlement to a license/permit in a subsequent time period.
Section 6. Assignment or Transfer. No Tribal license issued under this Liquor Ordinance shall be assigned or transferred without the prior written approval of the Executive Council expressed by formal, written resolution and/or transfer order.
a. For the payment of all necessary personnel, administrative costs, and legal fees for the administration and enforcement of this Liquor Ordinance and its activities.
b. The remainder shall be turned over to the Liquor Trust Account of the Tribe.
Section 1. Nothing contained in this Liquor Ordinance is intended to nor does in anyway limit, alter, restrict, or expressly or unequivocally waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity from un-consented suit or action.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that certain coal resources in the North Porcupine Coal Tract described below in Campbell County, Wyoming, will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.
The lease sale will be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2012. Sealed bids must be submitted on or before 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 27, 2012.
The lease sale will be held in the First Floor Conference Room (Room 107), of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003. Sealed bids must be submitted to the Cashier, BLM Wyoming State Office, at the address given above.
Mavis Love, Land Law Examiner, or Kathy Muller Ogle, Coal Coordinator, at 307–775–6258, and 307–775–6206, respectively.
This coal lease sale is being held in response to a lease by application (LBA) filed by BTU Western Resources, Inc., Gillette, Wyoming. The coal resource to be offered consists of all reserves recoverable by surface mining methods in the following-described lands located approximately 5 to 7 miles north of the Campbell/Converse county line, adjacent and up to 7 miles east of the main line railroad, and adjacent to the western and northern lease boundary of the North Antelope Rochelle Mine.
Containing 6,364.28 acres, more or less, in Campbell County, Wyoming.
The LBA tract is adjacent to Federal leases to the east and south as well as a State of Wyoming lease to the north, all controlled by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine. It is also adjacent to a Federal lease to the east, which is part of Peabody Energy Corporation's School Creek Mine. It is adjacent to additional unleased Federal coal to the west and north.
Most of the acreage offered has been determined to be suitable for mining except for the mainline railroad right-of-way along the western boundary of the LBA. Features such as roads, utilities, and pipelines can be moved to permit coal recovery. In addition, numerous oil, gas, and coal bed natural gas wells are located on the LBA. The estimate of the bonus value of the coal lease will include consideration of the future production from these wells. An economic analysis of this future income stream will consider reasonable compensation to the gas lessee for lost production of the natural gas when the wells are bought out by the coal lessee. The majority of the surface estate of the tract is within the Thunder Basin National Grasslands and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The remainder of the surface estate is owned by various Peabody Energy Corporation subsidiaries and a small portion is owned by the State of Wyoming.
The tract contains surface mineable coal reserves in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone currently being recovered in the adjacent, existing mine. The Wyodak-Anderson is the only mineable seam on the tract. The thickness ranges from about 69 feet in the east to about 96 feet in the west. Overburden depths range from about 196 to 430 feet thick.
The tract contains an estimated 721,154,828 tons of mineable coal. This estimate of mineable reserves includes the seam mentioned above but does not include any tonnage from localized seams or splits containing less than 5 feet of coal. It does not include the adjacent State of Wyoming coal or the adjacent School Creek Mine Federal lease, although these reserves could possibly be recovered in conjunction with the LBA. It also excludes coal within and along the railroad right-of-way as required by typical mining practices. The total mineable stripping ratio of the coal in bank cubic yards per ton is approximately 4:1. Potential bidders for the LBA should consider the recovery rate expected from thick seam mining.
The North Porcupine LBA coal is ranked as subbituminous C. The overall average quality on an as-received basis is 8,892 British Thermal Units per pound containing approximately 0.20 percent sulfur. These quality averages place the coal reserves near the high end of the range of coal quality currently being mined in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin.
The tract will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount provided that the high bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the fair market value (FMV) of the tract. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. No bid that is less than $100 per acre, or fraction thereof, will be considered. The bids should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or be hand delivered.
Pursuant to the regulation at 43 CFR 3473.2(f), the applicant for the North Porcupine Tract, BTU Western Resources, Inc., has paid a total case-by-case cost recovery processing fee in the amount of $83,694. The successful bidder for the North Porcupine Tract, if someone other than the applicant, must pay to the BLM the $83,694 previously paid by BTU Western Resources, Inc. Additionally, the successful bidder must pay all processing costs the BLM will incur after the date this sale notice is published in the
Bidding instructions for the LBA tract offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are available from the BLM Wyoming State Office at the address above. Case file documents, WYW173408, are available for inspection at the BLM Wyoming State Office.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office, Palm Springs, California, has prepared a Draft California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan Amendment (PA) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for McCoy Solar, LLC's right-of-way (ROW) application for the McCoy Solar Energy Project (MSEP), and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS/PA within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For further information, or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Jeffery Childers; telephone 951–697–5308; address BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553–9046; email
The applicant, McCoy Solar, LLC, has requested a ROW authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission an up to 750 megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar energy generation facility and necessary ancillary facilities on about 7,700 acres of BLM managed lands with a footprint of approximately 4,893 acres for the solar facility. The proposed 16-mile generation tie line, with a ROW width of 100 feet, will require about 200 acres of public and private lands. The proposed 20-acre switch yard will be located adjacent to and connect into Southern California Edison's Colorado River Substation. The MSEP site is located approximately 13 miles northwest of the City of Blythe, California, and approximately 32 miles east of Desert Center.
The BLM will decide whether to grant, grant with modification, or deny a ROW to McCoy Solar, LLC, for the proposed MSEP. The BLM is proposing to amend the CDCA Plan by designating the project area as either available or unavailable for solar energy projects. The CDCA Plan (1980, as amended), while recognizing the potential compatibility of renewable energy generation facilities with other uses on public lands, requires that all sites proposed for power generation or transmission not already identified in the CDCA Plan be considered through the plan amendment process. If the BLM decides to grant a ROW for this project, the CDCA Plan would be amended as required.
In addition to the proposed action and a no action alternative, the BLM is analyzing a reduced acreage alternative and a reconfigured generation tie line alternative. The Draft EIS/PA also analyzes two no-project alternatives that reject the project but amend the CDCA Plan to make the project area either:
(1) Available for future solar generation energy projects; or
(2) Unavailable for future solar energy generation projects.
The BLM's Preferred Alternative has been identified as the Proposed Action.
The Draft EIS/PA evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed MSEP on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water resources, geological resources and hazards, land use, noise, paleontological resources, public health, socioeconomics, soils, traffic and transportation, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, and other resources.
A Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS/Environmental Impact Report for the MSEP project was published in the
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.),
Before including your phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10; 43 CFR 1610.2 and 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting date is June 22, 2012, at the Albuquerque District Office, 435 Montano Rd., NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107. The meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The public comment period will begin at 3:30 p.m. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the above address. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
Gina Melchor, Albuquerque District Office, 435 Montano Rd., NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107, 505–761–8935. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico.
At this meeting, topics include a discussion on the RAC Charter and Operating Procedures, Election of Officers, and presentations from the Socorro and Rio Puerco Field Office Managers.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of extension of public comment period for the scoping process.
The Bureau of Reclamation is extending the public comment period for the scoping process to June 28, 2012. We published the notice of intent in the
Written comments as part of the scoping process will be accepted on or before June 28, 2012.
Send written comments to Janice Piñero, Endangered Species Compliance Act Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation, Bay-Delta Office, 801 I Street, Suite 140, Sacramento, CA 95814–2536; fax to (916) 414–2439; or email at
Janice Piñero at (916) 414–2428; or email at
Before including your name, address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II, and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 19, 2012, AllTech Associates Inc., 2051 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import these controlled substances for the manufacture of reference standards.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations § 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 18, 2011, Noramco, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801–4417, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the raw Opium (9600) and Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) to manufacture other controlled substances. The company plans to import Tapentadol (9780) in intermediate form for the bulk manufacture of Tapentadol (9780) which it will distribute to its customers. The company plans to import the Phenylacetone (8501) in bulk for the manufacture of a controlled substance.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (2007).
In regard to the non-narcotic raw material, any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I or II, which fall under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than June 25, 2012.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR § 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
By Notice dated March 8, 2012, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
In reference to the import of Fentanyl (9801), the authorization for the import of this basic class of controlled substance is granted only for analytical testing and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Capricorn Pharma, Inc., to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Capricorn Pharma, Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated March 23, 2012, and published in the
The company manufactures a product containing morphine in the United States. The company exports this product to customers around the world, including Europe. The company has been asked to ensure that its product sold to European customers meets standards established by the European Pharmacopeia, which is administered by the Directorate of the Quality of Medicines (EDQM). In order to ensure that its product will meet European specifications, the company seeks to import morphine supplied by EDQM to use as reference standards. This is the sole purpose for which the company will be authorized by DEA to import morphine.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Meridian Medical Technologies to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Meridian Medical Technologies to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated April 17, 2012 and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk controlled substance intermediates for sale to its customers. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (2007)
DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated March 8, 2012, and published in the
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of analytical reference standards.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Cerilliant Corporation to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Cerilliant Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated January 30, 2012, and published in the
The company is a contract manufacturer. At the request of the company's customers, it manufactures derivatives of controlled substances in bulk form only.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of PCAS-Nanosyn, LLC. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated PCAS-Nanosyn, LLC. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated January 26, 2012, and published in the
The company plans to produce the listed controlled substances in bulk to be used in the manufacture of reagents and drug calibrator controls which are DEA exempt products.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated January 26, 2012, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture reference standards.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated January 23, 2012, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use and for sale to other companies.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt, LLC., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Mallinckrodt, LLC., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Judith H. Lock, Executive Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616–6975.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Settlement Agreements Between a Plan and Party in Interest,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Submit comments on or before June 25, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202–395–6929/Fax: 202–395–6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 94–71 exempts from certain restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) a settlement agreement entered into between a plan and a party in interest resulting from an investigation of an employee benefit plan by the Department. PTE 03–39 similarly exempts from certain restrictions of the ERISA and certain taxes of the Code, settlement agreements entered into between a plan and a party in interest in avoidance of litigation.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are 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.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), the Secretary of Labor and the United States Trade Representative have taken steps to renew the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy. The Committee will be chartered pursuant to section 135(c)(1) and (2) of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. 2155(c) (1) and (2), as amended by section 1103 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Public Law 96–39, 93 Stat. 144, 308 (1979), section 1631 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Public Law 100–418, 102 Stat. 1107, 1264 (1988); and Executive Order 11846 of March 27, 1975, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 971 (which delegates certain Presidential responsibilities conferred in section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 to the United States Trade Representative).
The Committee will meet at irregular intervals at the call of the Secretary of Labor and the United States Trade Representative.
Anne M. Zollner, Designated Federal Official and Division Chief, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, Room S–5317, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–4890.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, in collaboration with the Department of Education, announces that eight states are eligible to apply for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) (Pub. L. 105–220, 29 U.S.C. 2801
The eight eligible states must submit their applications for incentive funding to the Department of Labor by July 9, 2012.
Submit applications to the Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Strategic Planning and Performance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–5641, Washington, DC 20210,
Eight states (see Appendix) qualify to receive a share of the $10.4 million available for incentive grant awards under WIA section 503. These funds, which were contributed by the Department of Education from appropriations for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), are available for the eligible states to use through June 30, 2014, to support innovative workforce development and education activities that are authorized under title IB (Workforce Investment Systems) or title II (AEFLA) of WIA, or under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education
The states eligible to apply for incentive grant awards and the amounts they are eligible to receive are listed in the following chart:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Temporary Labor Camps Standard (29 CFR 1910.142).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by July 24, 2012.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
OSHA is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for certain information collection requirements contained in the Temporary Labor Camps Standard (29 CFR 1910.142). The main purpose of these provisions is to eliminate the incidence of communicable disease among temporary labor camp residents. The Standard requires camp superintendents to report immediately to the local health officer the name and address of any individual in the camp known to have, or suspected of having, a communicable disease. Whenever there is a case of suspected food poisoning or an unusual prevalence of any illness in which fever, diarrhea, sore throat, vomiting or jaundice is a prominent symptom, the Standard requires the camp superintendent to report that immediately to the health authority. In addition, the Standard requires that where the toilet rooms are shared, separate toilet rooms must be provided for each sex. These rooms must be “marked for men” and” for women” by signs printed in English and in the native language of the persons occupying the camp, or marked with easily understood pictures or symbols.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Temporary Labor Camps Standard (29 CFR 1910.142). OSHA is proposing to decrease its existing burden hour estimate from 67 hours to 54 hours, for a total decrease of 13 hours. Based on new data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Agency decreased the number of migrant workers from 135,830 to 109,760 workers. Additionally, based upon this new data, the Agency decreased the number of “incidents of notifiable diseases” from 833 cases to 673.
The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB for approval.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–2350, (TTY (877) 889–5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Information on using the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirement contained in the Standard on Reports of Injuries to Employees Operating Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 1910.217(g)).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by July 24, 2012.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
In the event a worker is injured while operating a mechanical power press, 29 CFR 1910.217(g) requires an employer to provide information to OSHA regarding the accident within 30 days of the accident. This information includes the employer's and worker's name(s), workplace address and location; injury sustained; task being performed when the injury occurred; number of operators required for the operation and the number of operators provided with controls and safeguards; cause of the accident; type of clutch, safeguard(s), and feeding method(s) used; and means used to actuate the press stroke. OSHA's Directorate of Standards and Guidance, or the State agency administering a plan approved by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, collects the information. These reports are a source of up-to-date information on power press machines. Particularly, this information identifies the equipment used and conditions associated with these injuries.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirement contained in the Standard on Reports of Injuries to Employees Operating Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 1910.217(g)). OSHA is proposing to decrease the existing burden hour estimate for the collection of information requirement specified by the Provision from 13 hours to 9 hours, for a total decrease of 4 hours. This adjustment is a result of a decline in the number of reports received by OSHA annually.
The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–2350, (TTY (877) 889–5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Announcement of meetings of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) and NACOSH Work Groups.
NACOSH will meet June 20, 2012, in Washington, DC. In conjunction with the committee meeting, NACOSH Work Groups will meet on June 19, 2012.
Comments, requests to speak and speaker presentations, including personal information provided, will be placed in the public docket and may be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birthdates.
NACOSH will meet Wednesday, June 20, 2012, in Washington, DC. NACOSH meetings are open to the public.
Section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 656) authorizes NACOSH to advise the Secretaries of Labor, and Health and Human Services, on matters relating to the administration of the OSH Act. NACOSH is a continuing advisory body and operates in compliance with the OSH Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and regulations issued pursuant to those laws (29 CFR 1912a, 41 CFR part 102–3).
The tentative agenda of the NACOSH meeting includes:
• Remarks from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA);
• Remarks from the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH);
• OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance presentation on the Hazard Communication final rule and the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) Standard;
• OSHA enforcement program updates;
• Presentation on recent changes and improvements in OSHA's Whistleblower Program;
• Presentation on the joint NIOSH–OSHA fall prevention in construction campaign;
• NACOSH Work Group reports and Committee administrative business; and
• Discussions on emerging issues.
OSHA transcribes NACOSH meetings and prepares detailed minutes of the meetings. OSHA places the meeting transcripts and minutes in the public record of the NACOSH meeting. The
NACOSH existing Work Groups, Injury and Illness Prevention Programs and Recordkeeping, will meet June 19, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., respectively.
OSHA is establishing a new NACOSH Effectiveness Measures Work Group to provide OSHA with recommendations on approaches to measure the effectiveness of OSHA's strategies, programs and activities. This Work Group will meet at 3:30 p.m., June 19.
The Work Groups will report back to the full committee at the June 20, 2012, NACOSH meeting.
Individuals needing special accommodations to attend NACOSH and NACOSH Work Group meetings should contact Ms. Chatmon.
Because of security-related procedures, submission by regular mail may result in significant delay in receipt. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery, messenger or courier service.
Requests to speak must state the amount of time requested to speak, the interest the individual represents (e.g., organization name), if any, and a brief outline of the presentation. Electronic speaker presentations (e.g., PowerPoint) must be compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and other Microsoft 2010 formats. Requests to address NACOSH may be granted as at the discretion of the NACOSH chair and as time permits.
OSHA also puts the meeting transcripts and minutes, Work Group reports and other documents from the NACOSH meeting in the public record of the NACOSH meeting. Although all submissions are listed in the
To read or download documents in the public record of the NACOSH meeting, go to Docket No. OSHA–2012–0019 at
Electronic copies of this
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by Section 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (U.S.C. 656), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2); 29 CFR part 1912a; 41 CFR part 102–3; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912 1/25/2012).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Research Only License.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, research only license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,309,738 and 7,968,648 entitled “Approach for Achieving Flame Retardancy while Retaining Physical Properties in a Compatible Polymer Matrix,” to the Leather Institute, having its principal place of business at 142 Route 35, Red Bank, NJ 07701. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license 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, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Mail Code CC–A, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899. Telephone: 321–867–7214; Facsimile: 321–867–1817.
Randall M. Heald, Patent Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Mail Code CC–A, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL
National Archives and Records Administration.
Notice of Opening of Additional Materials.
This notice announces the opening of additional Nixon Presidential Historical Materials by the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, a division of the National Archives and Records Administration. Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with section 104 of Title I of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA, 44 U.S.C. 2111 note) and 1275.42(b) of the PRMPA Regulations implementing the Act (36 CFR part 1275), the Agency has identified, inventoried, and prepared for public access additional textual materials with certain information redacted as required by law, including the PRMPA.
The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum intends to make the materials described in this notice available to the public on Tuesday, June 26, 2012, at the Richard Nixon Library and Museum's primary location in Yorba Linda, CA, beginning at 9:30 a.m. PDT/12:30 p.m. EDT. In accordance with 36 CFR 1275.44, any person who believes it necessary to file a claim of legal right or privilege concerning access to these materials must notify the Archivist of the United States in writing of the claimed right, privilege, or defense within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, a division of the National Archives, is located at 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA. Researchers must have a NARA researcher card, which they may obtain when they arrive at the Library. Selections from these materials will be available at
Paul Wormser, Acting Director, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, 714–983–9119.
The following materials will be made available in accordance with this notice:
1.
2.
3.
4.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain comments from the public. NCUA is proposing a data collection change to the credit union Profile as well as the 5300 Call Report. NCUA is proposing to add a new account to the Contacts section of the Profile to identify the initial date of election or appointment of each official to help assess the longevity of credit union board members. Additionally, NCUA is planning to add a question to the Regulatory section of the Profile where credit unions will be required to certify their compliance with 12 CFR 701.4. On the 5300 Call Report, NCUA will revise the regulatory reporting requirements by eliminating the data collection on modified loans and target data collection efforts on loans meeting the definition of a troubled debt restructured loan under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Comments will be accepted until July 24, 2012.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the NCUA Contact and the OMB Reviewer listed below:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Tracy Crews at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, or at (703) 518–6444.
NCUA is amending the currently approved collection for 3133–0004. Two specific forms are used, NCUA Form 5300 and NCUA Profile Form 4501A, also known as the Call Report and Profile, respectively. Section 741.6 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations requires all federally insured credit unions to submit a Call Report quarterly. 12 CFR 741.6. The information enables the NCUA to monitor credit unions whose share accounts are insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. NCUA uses the information collected from these Call Reports to fulfill its mission of supervising credit unions and the Federal Reserve Board uses it to monitor and control the nation's money supply and the system of financial institutions. Congress and various state legislatures use this information to monitor, regulate, and control credit unions and financial institutions. The changes made to the Profile and Call Report form for December 2012 will help the National Credit Union Administration assess the longevity of credit union board members and provide data to assess financial risks and loan practices of credit unions. There is a decrease of 4,515 hours from the last submission (2011). The decrease is noted as an adjustment of the number of credit unions completing Form 5300 from 7,264 federally insured credit unions to 7,093. This decline is due strictly to credit union mergers and liquidations.
The NCUA requests that you send your comments on this collection to the location listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Proposal for the following collection of information:
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703–292–7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
“To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. * * *”
The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:
• Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process;
• Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential;
• Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and engineering;
• Programs that provide a source of information for policy formulation; and
• Other activities to promote these ends.
Over the years, NSF's statutory authority has been modified in a number of significant ways. In 1968, authority to support applied research was added to the Organic Act. In 1980, The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act gave NSF standing authority to support activities to improve the participation of women and minorities in science and engineering.
Another major change occurred in 1986, when engineering was accorded equal status with science in the Organic Act. NSF has always dedicated itself to providing the leadership and vision needed to keep the words and ideas embedded in its mission statement fresh and up-to-date. Even in today's rapidly changing environment, NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: Promoting achievement and progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for research and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms it uses to carry out its charges have evolved significantly over the last four decades, its ultimate mission remains the same.
Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The awards are based mainly on evaluations of proposal merit submitted to the Foundation.
The Foundation has a continuing commitment to monitor the operations of its information collection to identify and address excessive reporting burdens as well as to identify any real or apparent inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene, Order.
Comments must be filed by June 25, 2012. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 24, 2012. Any potential party as defined in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.4, who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by June 4, 2012.
You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by searching on
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Patrick G. Boyle, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301–415–3936, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2010–0389 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2010–0389 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC or the licensee), for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP), located in Burke County, Georgia.
The proposed amendments would revise VEGP's Technical Specifications (TS) associated with the “Steam Generator (SG) Program” allowing the exclusion of portions of the SG tubes below the top of the SG tube sheet from periodic SG tube inspections during the remaining licensed operations of the plant. Furthermore, the amendment requests to remove the interim SG alternative inspection criteria that had been previously approved.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
(1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection criteria and the steam generator inspection reporting criteria does not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed change will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed accident.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting transients with consideration to the proposed change to the steam generator tube inspection and repair criteria are the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event and the feedline break (FLB)/steam line break (SLB) postulated accidents. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks within the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the tube-to-tubesheet joint. This constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet, and from the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side. Based on this design, the structural margins against burst, as discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,” (Reference 10) are maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions.
The proposed change has no impact on the structural or leakage integrity of the portion of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The proposed change maintains structural integrity of the steam generator tubes and does not affect other systems, structures, components, or operational features. Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant increase in the probability of the occurrence of a SGTR accident.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress corrosion cracking below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from cracks within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are affected by the primary-to secondary leakage flow during the event. However, primary-to-secondary leakage flow through a postulated broken tube is not affected by the proposed changes since the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the region of the hydraulic expansion by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial hydraulically expanded outside diameter. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the consequences of a SGTR.
The consequences of a SLB/FLB are also not significantly affected by the proposed changes. During a SLB/FLB accident, the reduction in pressure above the tubesheet on the shell side of the steam generator creates an axially uniformly distributed load on the tubesheet due to the reactor coolant system pressure on the underside of the tubesheet. The resulting bending action constrains the tubes in the tubesheet thereby restricting primary-to-secondary leakage below the midplane.
Primary-to-secondary leakage from tube degradation in the tubesheet area during the limiting accident (i.e., a FLB) is limited by flow restrictions. These restrictions result from the crack and tube-to-tubesheet contact pressures that provide a restricted leakage path above the indications and also limit the degree of potential crack face opening as compared to free span indications.
The leakage factor of 2.48 for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP), for a postulated FLB, has been calculated as shown in Revised Table 9–7 of Reference 11. Specifically, for the condition monitoring assessment, the component of leakage from the prior cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of 2.48 and added to the total leakage from any other source and compared to the allowable accident induced leakage limit. For the operational assessment, the difference in the leakage between the allowable leakage and the accident induced leakage from sources other than the tubesheet expansion region will be divided by 2.48 and compared to the observed operational leakage. Feedline break leakage is limited by leakage flow restrictions resulting from the leakage path above potential cracks through the tube-to-tubesheet crevice. The leak rate during postulated accident conditions (including locked rotor) has been shown to remain within the accident analysis assumptions for all axial and or circumferentially orientated cracks occurring 15.2 inches below the top of the tubesheet. The accident induced leak rate limit is 1.0 gpm [gallons per minute]. The TS operational leak rate is 150 gpd [gallons per day] (0.1 gpm) through any one steam generator. Consequently, there is significant margin between accident leakage and
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection criteria and the steam generator inspection reporting criteria does not introduce any new equipment, create new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection criteria and the steam generator inspection reporting criteria maintains the required structural margins of the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions. NEI 97–06, Revision 3, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines” (Reference 6) and RG 1.121, are used as the bases in the development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC for meeting [10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria] GDC 14, “Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,” GDC 15, “Reactor Coolant System Design,” GDC 31, “Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,” and GDC 32, “Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,” by reducing the probability and consequences of a SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that, by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube wall degradation, the probability and consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code.
For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For circumferentially oriented cracking, the H* analysis, documented in section 4 of this enclosure, defines a length of degradation free expanded tubing that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with applicable safety factors applied. Application of the limited hot and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the proposed limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received by June 25, 2012 will be considered in making any final determination. You may submit comments using any of the methods discussed in the
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Requirements for hearing requests and petitions for leave to intervene are found in 10 CFR 2.309, “Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Requirements for Standing, and Contentions.” Interested persons should consult 10 CFR part 2, Section 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 (or call the PDR at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737). The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the requestor/petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition must provide the name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner and specifically explain the reasons why the intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
A petition for leave to intervene must also include a specification of the contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the hearing. For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The petition must include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the position of the requestor/petitioner and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely. Finally, the petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the requestor/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Non-timely petitions for leave to intervene and contentions, amended petitions, and supplemental petitions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the Licensing Board or a Presiding Officer that the petition should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
A State, county, municipality, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agencies thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 24, 2012. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in Section IV of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that State and Federally-recognized Indian tribes do not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d)(1) if the facility is located within its boundaries. The entities listed above could also seek to participate in a hearing as a nonparty pursuant to 10 CFR 2.315(c).
Any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to this proceeding may request permission to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to such limits and conditions as may be imposed by the Licensing Board. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by July 24, 2012.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first-class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from May 25, 2012. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555–0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–291) (“Rating Agency Act”), enacted on September 29, 2006, defines the term “nationally recognized statistical rating organization,” or “NRSRO” and provides authority for the Commission to implement registration, recordkeeping, financial reporting, and oversight rules with respect to registered credit rating agencies.
In 2009, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 17g–5. Rule 17g–5, as amended, imposes additional requirements on NRSROs in order to address concerns about the integrity of their credit rating procedures and methodologies in light of the role they played in determining credit ratings for securities collateralized by or linked to subprime residential mortgages.
Rule 17g–5, as amended, requires NRSROs to disclose and manage certain conflicts of interest. The collection of information obligation imposed by Rule 17g–5 is mandatory for credit rating agencies that are applying to register or are registered with the Commission as NRSROs. Registration with the Commission as an NRSRO is voluntary.
The Rating Agency Act added a new Section 15E, “Registration of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations” (15 U.S.C. 78o–7) to the Exchange Act. Exchange Act Section 15E(h)(2) provides the Commission with authority to prohibit, or require the management and disclosure of, any potential conflict of interest relating to the issuance of credit ratings by an NRSRO (15 U.S.C. 78o–7(h)(2)).
Rule 17g–5, as amended, requires the disclosure and establishment of procedures to manage an additional conflict of interest and prohibits an NRSRO from issuing a rating for a structured finance product unless information about the transaction and the assets underlying the rated security are disclosed to certain persons. The Commission estimates that it will take 10 NRSROs approximately 300 hours to develop a system, as well as the policies and procedures, for the disclosures required by Rule 17g–5, resulting in a total one-time hour burden of 3,000.
Rule 17g–5, as amended, also requires disclosures on a transaction by transaction basis. The Commission estimates that the total number of structured finance ratings issued by all NRSROs in a given year would be 14,880 and that it would take 1 hour per transaction to make the information publicly available resulting in a total aggregate annual burden to the industry of 14,880 hours.
Rule 17g–5, as amended, also requires arrangers to disclose certain information. The Commission estimates that it would take 200 arrangers subject to the rule approximately 300 hours to develop a system, as well as the policies and procedures, for the disclosures required by Rule 17g–5, resulting in a total one-time hour burden of 60,000.
Rule 17g–5, as amended, also requires disclosures by arrangers on a transaction by transaction basis. The Commission estimates that 200 arrangers would arrange approximately 20 new transactions per year and that it would take 1 hour per transaction to make the information publicly available, resulting in a total aggregate annual burden of 4,000 hours.
Rule 17g–5, as amended, also requires disclosure of information by arrangers on an ongoing basis that is used by an NRSRO to undertake credit rating surveillance on the structured finance product. The Commission estimates this disclosure would be required for approximately 125 transactions a month, and it would take each respondent approximately 0.5 hours per transaction to disclose the information. Therefore, the Commission estimates that it would take each respondent approximately 750 hours on an annual basis to disclose such information, for a total aggregate annual burden of 150,000 hours.
Finally, Rule 17g–5, as amended, requires NRSROs to submit an annual certification to the Commission. The Commission estimates that it would take each NRSRO approximately 2 hours to complete the certification, resulting in a total aggregate annual burden of 20 hours.
Accordingly, the total estimated burden associated with Rule 17g–5 is 63,000 hours on a one-time basis (3,000 + 60,000 = 63,000) and 168,900 on an annual basis (14,880 + 150,000 + 4,000 + 20 = 168,900).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17h–1T requires a broker-dealer to maintain and preserve records and other information concerning certain entities that are associated with the broker-dealer. This requirement extends to the financial and securities activities of the holding company, affiliates and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the financial or operational condition of the broker-dealer. Rule 17h–2T requires a broker-dealer to file with the Commission quarterly reports and a cumulative year-end report concerning the information required to be maintained and preserved under Rule 17h–1T.
The collection of information required by Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T, collectively referred to as the “risk assessment rules” is necessary to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the financial and operational condition of the broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities on the broker-dealer.
There are currently 275 respondents that must comply with Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T. Each of these 275 respondents requires approximately 10 hours per year, or 2.5 hours per quarter, to maintain the records required under Rule 17h–1T, for an aggregate annual burden of 2750 hours (275 respondents × 10 hours). In addition, each of these 275 respondents must make five annual responses under Rule 17h–2T. These five responses require approximately 14 hours per respondent per year, or 3.5 hours per quarter, for an aggregate annual burden of 3,850 hours (275 respondents × 14 hours).
In addition, there are approximately twenty-five new respondents per year that must draft an organizational chart required under Rule 17h–1T and establish a system for complying with the risk assessment rules. The staff estimates that drafting the required organizational chart requires one hour and establishing a system for complying with the risk assessment rules requires three hours, thus requiring an aggregate of 100 hours (25 new respondents × 4 hours). Thus, the total compliance burden per year is approximately 6,700 burden hours (2,750 + 3,850 + 100).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an email to:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on Friday, June 8, 2012, in Multi-Purpose Room LL–006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the public. The meeting will be Web cast on the Commission's Web site at
The agenda for the meeting includes discussions of provisions of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act and other matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities laws. Notice of this meeting is less than fifteen days prior to the meeting due to an administrative delay.
The public meeting will be held Friday, June 8, 2012. Written statements should be received on or before June 5, 2012.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL–006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
• Send an email message to
• Send paper statements in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Johanna V. Losert, Special Counsel, at (202) 551–3460, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange
In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations thereunder, Meredith B. Cross, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(pp) to change the Primary After 3:45 Order to a Primary After 3:55 Order. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(pp) to change the Primary After 3:45 Order to a Primary After 3:55 Order.
Currently, the Primary After 3:45 Order can be entered for participation on the Exchange until 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time (12:45 p.m. Pacific Time), after which time the order is cancelled on the Exchange and an order is entered for participation on the primary market. These orders can be Day only and may not be designated as GTC or GTD. Any such orders that are routed to the primary market at 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time retail [sic] their original order attributes.
The Exchange proposes to amend the rule to provide that such orders can be entered for participation on the Exchange until 3:55 p.m. Eastern Time (12:55 p.m. Pacific Time) instead of 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time. As proposed the order type would be renamed the “Primary After 3:55 Order.” Other than the time change, the Exchange does not propose any changes to the order type.
The Exchange is proposing this time change to [sic] in order to provide greater opportunity for ETP Holders that use this order type to obtain an Exchange execution before it is routed to the primary market. In particular, because the Exchange's rebate is currently higher than those on the primary markets, the Exchange believes that providing a longer opportunity for an execution on the Exchange would benefit ETP Holders, while at the same time continuing to provide an opportunity for such orders to be routed to the primary market in time for the closing auction.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
NYSE Arca has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The ISE proposes to terminate a pilot program related to an incentive plan for certain Foreign Currency (“FX”) options traded on the Exchange and to make a technical change to its Schedule of Fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to terminate a pilot program related to an incentive plan for certain FX options traded on the Exchange and to make a technical change to its Schedule of Fees. First, the Exchange currently trades a number of FX options, including options on the New Zealand dollar (“NZD”), the Mexican peso (“PZO”), the Swedish krona (“SKA”), the Brazilian real (“BRB”), the Australian dollar (“AUX”), the British pound (“BPX”), the Canadian dollar (“CDD”), the euro (“EUI”), the Japanese yen (“YUK”) and the Swiss franc (“SFC”).
The Exchange adopted the incentive plan to promote trading in NZD, PZO SKA, BRB, AUX, BPX, CDD, EUI, YUK and SFC (“Incentive Plan Symbols”). Pursuant to the incentive plan, the Exchange waives the transaction fees for the Early Adopter
Market makers interested in the [sic] participating in the incentive plan are required to enroll by a certain date. Since the inception of the incentive plan, the Exchange has continuously extended the date by which market makers may join the incentive plan,
Second, the Exchange recently filed a proposed rule change to amend an existing fee cap program and a related service fee (“Fee Cap Filing”).
The Exchange believes that its proposal to clarify its Schedule of Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to clarify how the processing of a Price to Comply Order under Rule 4751(f)(7) operates based on the method of entry. The Exchange will implement the change effective May 14, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
The following definitions apply to the Rule 4600 and 4750 Series for the trading of securities listed on Nasdaq or a national securities exchange other than Nasdaq.
(a)–(e)
(f) The term “Order Type” shall mean the unique processing prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into the System, and shall include:
(1)–(6) No change.
(7) “Price to Comply Order” are orders that, if, at the time of entry, a Price to Comply Order would lock or cross the quotation of an external market, the order will be priced to the current low offer (for bids) or to the current best bid (for offers) and displayed at a price one minimum price increment lower than the offer (for bids) or higher than the bid (for offers). The displayed and undisplayed prices of a Price to Comply order
(8)–(14) No change.
(g)–(i) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
BX is proposing to clarify the effect that the methods of order entry have on the processing of a Price to Comply Order, as described in Rule 4751(f)(7).
As part of its relaunch of an equities market in January 2009, BX adopted substantially similar equities rules to that of its sister exchange The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”), including the Price to Comply Order type under Rule 4751(f)(7).
The June 2008 amendment changed how the NASDAQ Price to Comply Order operates so that a locking or crossing order is no longer converted to a Non-Displayed Order, but rather is displayed at the most aggressive price
BX is proposing to amend Rule 4751(f)(7) to clarify the effect that the method of order entry has on the processing of the Price to Comply Order. As noted above, the method of entry of a Price to Comply Order determines whether the order is repriced once or multiple times. This will continue to be the case under the amended rule; however, an OUCH subscriber will be afforded the choice to have its Price to Comply Order be subject to repricing
BX believes that the new functionality and related rule change will serve to reduce the order traffic received using the OUCH protocol. BX notes that, in certain cases, a member will submit a Price to Comply Order at an aggressive price that it anticipates will be at the NBBO. Often such an order is not submitted at the NBBO and is not executed after repricing because the market does not move to the adjusted order price. In these cases, the member firm will typically submit additional aggressive orders, which likewise are not executed. Because the OUCH protocol is used by member firms that are able to submit a large volume of orders, BX believes that offering such firms the ability to have BX reprice the Price to Comply Order multiple times will serve to reduce the excessive volume of orders entered into the System which are ultimately canceled.
As noted, BX will continue to offer OUCH subscribers an alternative to the multiple repricing functionality so that such member firms may elect to have a locked or crossed Price to Comply Order repriced only once, consistent with the current process. BX believes that this will accommodate member firms that seek the certainty of repricing at most once or whose trading systems depend on the existing repricing mechanism.
BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange has provided the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Certificate of Formation, Amended and Restated Operating Agreement (“Operating Agreement”), Company Guide, and Rules to change the name of the Exchange to NYSE MKT LLC. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange,
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE Amex proposes to amend its Certificate of Formation, Operating Agreement, Company Guide, and Rules to change the name of the Exchange to NYSE MKT LLC.
At the time of the acquisition of the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) by NYSE Euronext on October 1, 2008, the name of the Exchange, as the successor entity to Amex, was initially established as “NYSE Alternext US LLC.”
Specifically, the Certificate of Formation of the Exchange would be amended to remove the reference to “NYSE Amex LLC” and replace it with “NYSE MKT LLC.” The Operating Agreement of NYSE Amex LLC also would be amended and restated to become the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE MKT LLC, with the word “Company” to be redefined to mean “NYSE MKT LLC.” Article 1, Section 1.01 of the Operating Agreement would be revised to state the name of the limited liability company as “NYSE MKT LLC,” and in Article 3, Section 2.03 the “NYSE Amex DCRC” would be renamed the “NYSE MKT DCRC.”
In the Exchange's Rules and its Company Guide, references to “NYSE Amex,” “Amex,” “NYSE Amex LLC,” “Alternext,” and “American Stock Exchange” would be changed to “NYSE MKT” or “the Exchange” or deleted, as appropriate. The Exchange proposes to add a new definition to the General and Floor Rules to define the term “Company Guide” to mean the NYSE MKT LLC Company Guide and conform references in the Exchange's rules accordingly. The Exchange does not propose to rename the NYSE Amex options business; therefore, references to “Amex Trading Permit,” “ATP
None of the foregoing changes are substantive.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change is concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CME is proposing to make certain fee-related changes that would apply to its OTC Interest Rate Swap clearing offering.
The purpose of the Program is to incentivize participants to increase the volume in CME over-the-counter (“OTC”) interest rate swaps which will improve market liquidity. The resulting addition of liquidity for these Products (as defined below) benefits all participants in the market.
CME OTC Interest Rate Swaps cleared by the Clearing House (“Products”).
CME may designate up to [five (5)]
Participants must provide designated accounts to CME in order for the account to receive consideration for the incentives described below.
1. Fee Discounts. Once accepted into the Program, participants will be eligible to receive predetermined discounts for transaction fees and maintenance fees in the Products during the Term.
2. Volume Discount Incentives. Additionally, once accepted into the Program, participants may qualify for predetermined fee discounts based on the overall fees charged for transactions in the Products submitted to the Clearing House during the Qualification Period.
The Clearing House shall monitor participants' activity and performance and shall retain the right to revoke Program participant status if they conclude from review that a Program participant no longer meets the eligibility requirements of the Program.
In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME currently offers clearing for certain OTC Interest Rate Swap products. CME has certain fee programs that apply to its OTC Interest Rate Swap (“IRS”) clearing offering. The proposed changes that are the subject of this filing modify one of its existing fee programs. The proposed changes are related to the fees CME charges for clearing and therefore will become effective upon filing. However, the Program will become operative on May 23, 2012.
The proposed changes modify a current volume incentive program that is designed to incentivize participants to increase their volume in CME OTC IRS through predetermined fee discounts for transaction fees and maintenance fees (“Program”). The Program currently may include up to five participants (including CME members and/or non-members) designated by CME based on factors including potential participants' experience in IRS activities and historical volumes in IRS with CME. The change proposed by this filing would simply increase the number of eligible participants from five to six.
Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) regulations, the Program has been interpreted by CME as an incentive program subject to CFTC Regulation 40.6(d), requiring a self-certification filing to the CFTC, although no change to text of the CME rulebook is required. CME notes that it has already certified the proposed changes that are the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission No. 12–136. The text of the CME proposed changes is above. The proposed changes establish or change a member due, fee or other charge imposed by CME under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder. CME believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular, to 17A(b)(3)(D),
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
The foregoing rule change was filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Electronic comments may be submitted by using the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Paper comments should be sent in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC, 20549–1090.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 23, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, the comment letters received, and any response to the comment letters submitted by NYSE Arca.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On September 2, 2011, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by the Exchange to permit on a pilot basis the listing and trading on C2 of Standard & Poor's 500 Index (“S&P 500”) options with third-Friday-of-the-month (“Expiration Friday”) expiration dates for which the exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from the closing prices of component securities (“SPXPM”).
The proposed rule change is to take effect on June 1, 2012.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Savoy Resources Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2006.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of SNRG Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2006.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Standard Mobile, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2009.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of VTEX Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended July 31, 2006.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 23, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 6, 2012.
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time, and agenda for the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The meeting will be open to the public.
June 4, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the Eisenhower Conference room, side B, located on the 2nd floor.
U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs serves as an independent source of advice and policy recommendation to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. The purpose of this meeting is to focus on framing the discussion for policy and programs that encompasses government support of veterans' entrepreneurship. For information regarding our veterans' resources and partners, please visit our Web site at
The meeting is open to the public. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting or to make a presentation to the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, advance notice is requested. Please contact Cheryl Simms, Program Liaison, at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Veterans Business Development, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416; Telephone number: (202) 619–1697; Fax number (202) 481–6085 or by email at
If you require accommodations because of a disability, please contact the Office of Veterans Business Development at (202) 205–6773 at least two weeks in advance.
Determinations: “Alighiero Boetti: Game Plan”
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including an art object list, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.
The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.
The meeting will be held June 13, 2012, from 8:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Program Management Committee. The agenda will include the following: June 13, 2012.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; granting of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant Daimler Trucks North America's (Daimler) application for an exemption for two Daimler drivers to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in the United States without possessing the requisite commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the States. George Weiberg and Klaus-Dieter Holloh are field test engineers who will be test-driving Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads in order to meet future vehicle safety and environmental regulatory requirements and to promote the development of technology advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. Each of these drivers holds a valid German CDL but lacks the U.S. residency necessary to obtain a CDL issued by one of the States. FMCSA believes that the process for obtaining a German-issued CDL is comparable to or is as effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures that these drivers will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.
This exemption is effective April 17, 2012, and expires on April 17, 2014.
Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC–PSD, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202–366–4325. Email:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR part 350
Daimler applied for an exemption for drivers Georg Weiberg and Klaus-Dieter Holloh from 49 CFR 383.23 of the CDL rules, requiring drivers operating CMVs to have a CDL issued by one of the States. A copy of the request for exemption is in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. The exemption allows these two drivers to operate CMVs to support Daimler field tests to meet future vehicle safety and environmental regulatory requirements and to promote the development of technology and advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. These Daimler drivers will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane state highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving for each driver will consist of no more than 200 miles per day for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis.
49 CFR 383.21 requires CMV drivers in the United States to have a CDL issued by a State. Weiberg and Holloh are citizens and residents of Germany. Only residents of a State can apply for a CDL.
Weiberg and Holloh each hold German CDLs and are experienced operators of CMVs. In their application for exemption, Daimler also submitted documentation showing the German safe driving records of both Weiberg and Holloh.
According to Daimler, the requirements for a German-issued CDL ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if these drivers had CDLs issued by one of the States. Daimler's drivers are very familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide and these drivers will be accompanied at all times by a U.S.-issued CDL holder who is familiar with the routes to be traveled. FMCSA has determined the process for obtaining a CDL in Germany is comparable to that for obtaining a CDL issued by one the States and adequately assesses each driver's ability to safely operate CMVs in the United States.
No comments were received in response to the FMCSA notice of this application and request for comments, published on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13684).
Based upon the merits of this application, including the extensive driving experience and safety records of Georg Weiberg and Klaus-Dieter Holloh, and the fact that both individuals have each successfully completed the requisite training and testing to obtain a German CDL, FMCSA concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with 381.305(a).
FMCSA grants Daimler an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Weiberg and Holloh to drive CMVs in the United States, subject to the following terms and conditions:
(1) The drivers and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350–399), (2) the drivers must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German CDL, (3) the drivers must be employed by, and operating the CMV within the scope of their duties for, Daimler, (4) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving one or both of these drivers, and (5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing if either driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense under section 383.51 or section 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) An exempted driver fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) has applied for exemptions on behalf of 45 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). In accordance with the statutory requirements concerning applications for exemptions, FMCSA requests public comments on NAD's request. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that exemptions must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than if they were not granted. If the Agency determines the exemptions would satisfy the statutory requirements and decides to grant the NAD's request after reviewing the public comments submitted in response to this notice, the exemptions would enable these 45 individuals to qualify as drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal hearing standard.
Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0154 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief Medical Programs, (202) 366–4001,
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has authority to grant exemptions from many of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), as amended by Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105–178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107, 401). FMCSA has published in 49 CFR part 381, subpart C final rules implementing the statutory changes in its exemption procedures made by section 4007, 69 FR 51589 (August 20, 2004).
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA also issues instructions for completing the medical examination report and includes advisory criteria on the report itself to provide guidance for medical examiners in applying the hearing standard. See 49 CFR 391.43(f). The current advisory criteria for the hearing standard include a reference to a report entitled “Hearing Disorders and Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor, in 1993.
On July 28, 2011, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), wrote FMCSA asking for exemptions for a number of drivers from the hearing requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The NAD maintains that communication in trucking is no longer hampered by hearing loss because drivers increasingly rely on smartphones and other technology to communicate with dispatch. The NAD conducted over 100 hours of interviews with individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing and reports that deaf drivers face fewer distractions behind the wheel.
FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be permitted to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Further, the Agency asks for comments on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be limited to operating only certain types of vehicles in interstate commerce, for example, vehicles without air brakes. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that the Agency request public comments on all applications for exemptions. The Agency is also required to make a determination that an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption before granting any such requests. 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). See also 49 CFR 381.305(a).
The NAD has applied for an exemption for each of the 45 individuals listed in this notice from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The NAD states that each of these drivers has “a proven track record of safe driving” and “can satisfy all of the Physical Qualification Standards, with the exception of the hearing test contained in § 391.41(b)(11).” Accordingly, after receiving public comment on the requests for exemption and the impacts on safety, the Agency will evaluate each application for an exemption to determine whether granting an
Mr. Bateman holds a class A commercial drivers license (CDL) from the state of Minnesota. He has driven intrastate for the past 14 years, including driving dump trucks and tractor trailer trucks. He would like to drive tractor trailer trucks in interstate commerce, if he is granted an exemption.
Mr. Britt holds a class D drivers license from the state of Tennessee. Class D has a for-hire endorsement that allows a person to drive vehicles such as limousines and taxis. He operates his personal vehicle in his job as a repairman. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive passenger buses, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Brown holds a class B CDL from the state of New Jersey. He currently drives a pick-up truck for a gas company and operates in intrastate commerce. He would like to apply for work as a CMV driver in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Brown holds a class A CDL from the state of Maine but is limited to intrastate operations. He has driven trucks since 1983 in intrastate commerce and has operated a number of different types of trucks, including vehicles with airbrakes. He would like to operate a CMV in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Brown holds a class D driver's license from the state of Kentucky. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs greater than 26,001 pounds in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Campbell holds a class D driver's license from Louisiana. He currently is a “light duty driver,” driving a tractor. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive heavy equipment such as a dump truck, or rig truck with a trailer, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Davis holds a class D driver's license from the state of Florida. His family is in the trucking business and he would like to obtain a class A CDL and drive tractor trailers in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Doane holds a class AM CDL from the state of Texas. He has logged over 250,000 miles driving trucks in interstate commerce prior to failing his hearing test recently. He has experience driving double/triple trailers, tankers and hazardous material transport. He is currently permitted to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. He would like to return to driving CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Estes holds a class B CDL from the state of Louisiana. He has driven a bus transporting students to and from school since 1990. He would like to obtain a CDL so that he can transport students to events outside of Louisiana, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Fairbanks held a class A CDL driver's license from the state of Minnesota from 2001 until 2010, when he failed his hearing test. During that time he drove a variety of tractor trailer trucks in interstate commerce. He would like to obtain a CDL and return to driving tractor trailer trucks, if he is granted an exemption.
Mr. Geariety held a class A CDL from the state of Minnesota from 1996 until 2011, when he failed his hearing test. During that time he drove large trucks carrying stone from a quarry to customers. He would like to return to driving CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Gordon holds a class CM driver's license from the state of Pennsylvania. He operates a mini-van as an independent contractor picking up and delivering materials. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs for a national carrier, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Haab holds a class D driver's license from the state of Louisiana. He is interested in obtaining a CDL and pursuing a career in commercial trucking, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Harper holds a driver's license from the state of Washington. He has driven rental vehicles and a12-seat van for a group home. He would like to obtain a CDL and have the opportunity to drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Hernandez holds a driver's license from the state of California. He has enrolled in a driving course for a class B CDL, but was unable to complete it as he did not pass the hearing test. He would like to obtain a class A or B CDL to pursue work driving CMVs in interstate commercial driver, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Hoffman has experience operating commercial motor vehicles in intrastate commerce. This includes experience driving heavy equipment, dump trucks and public works trucks with trailers while living in the state of Tennessee. He relocated to South Dakota, but is unable to obtain a class A CDL because he could not pass the hearing test. He would like to obtain a CDL to drive trucks in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Johnson holds a class CM driver's license from the state of Georgia. He would like to attend driving school to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Jones holds a class C CDL from the state of Texas. He has 7 years experience driving a variety of forklifts for a construction company. He would like to pursue opportunities driving CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Karr holds a class DM driver's license from the state of Kentucky. He would like to obtain a CDL and seek employment opportunities driving CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. King holds a class D driver's license from the state of Oklahoma. The class D license permits one to drive regular automobiles and trucks. He has experience driving single trailer vehicles with airbrakes. He would like to obtain a CDL and seek employment opportunities driving CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Kuller holds a class M driver's license from the state of Indiana. In the past, he held a CDL and hazmat license, and drove in interstate commerce for 14
Mr. Medrano holds a driver's license from the state of Washington. He is currently a student majoring in diesel technology, graduating in May 2012. Most job descriptions for diesel engine technicians include a requirement that he hold a CDL, due to the need to pick up and drive trucks back to the shop for repair. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Miller holds a class C driver's license from the state of Iowa. A class C allows the operation of vehicles under 26,000 pounds. He has experience operating a Ryder rental truck and personal farm tractors. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Ms. Miller holds a class C driver's license from the state of Iowa. She has experience driving students to and from local activities. She is limited at work due to her not being able to pass the hearing test and obtain a DOT medical card. She would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption. She is interested in career opportunities with package delivery companies.
Mr. Minch holds a driver's license from the state of New Hampshire. He currently drives super duty pick-up trucks for landscape and construction companies. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Moss holds a driver's license from the state of California. He currently works for a delivery and hauling service, driving trucks and often pulling a trailer. He would like to attend trucking school, obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. O'Rorke holds a class D driver's license from the state of Illinois. He has experience driving super duty pick-up trucks with a trailer and dump trucks for a tree service company. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Parker holds a class C driver's license from the state of California. The class C license in California allows one to operate a traditional two-axle vehicle. He has experience operating 18-wheel trucks as well as forklifts. He would like to obtain a CDL so he can drive the tractor trailer trucks in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Potter holds a class C driver's license from the state of Texas. He has experience driving a company van and rental trucks towing a trailer. He would like to obtain a class A CDL to drive tanker trucks in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Rameriez holds a class D driver's license from the state of Montana. He has experience driving a dump truck towing a trailer. He also drove a truck for five years while working as a painter. He would like to obtain a class A CDL and attend a trucking school in Montana, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Reams holds a class D driver's license from the state of Kentucky. The class D is valid for any single motor vehicle, and a trailer with weights not greater than 26,000 pounds. He has experience driving 24-foot moving trucks, fifth wheel vehicles and has hauled ATV's for personal use. He would like to obtain a CDL to drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Rodriguez holds a driver's license from the state of Connecticut. He has experience towing rental trailers and as a delivery driver for a dental lab. He would like to obtain a class A or B CDL and drive tractor trailer combination vehicles in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Rotondi holds a driver's license from the state of South Carolina. He has experience driving rental trucks and forklifts. He currently owns a 12-foot trailer he uses to tow his motorcycle. He would like to obtain a class A or B CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Schoultz holds a class C driver's license from the state of Pennsylvania. He has 25 years experience driving trucks, but he is currently not able to pass the DOT hearing test. He would like to obtain a CDL again and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Shields holds a class D driver's license from the state of Kentucky. He would like to obtain a CDL and to seek employment opportunities as a CMV driver, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Skinner holds a driver's license from the state of Florida that allows him to drive any non-commercial vehicle less than 26,001 pounds. He has experience driving rental trucks and towing rental trailers. He would like to obtain a class A CDL and drive an interstate tractor trailer weighing over 26,001 pounds with airbrakes, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Taylor holds a class C driver's license from the state of Texas. He is currently a student, but would like to seek opportunities in driving. He would like to obtain a CDL to drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Townsend holds a class A CDL from the state of North Carolina, allowing him to drive CMV's in intrastate commerce. He has owned a towing company for nine years and has experience driving a roll back truck with which he can carry two cars. He would like to be able to expand his business. He would like to obtain a CDL allowing him to drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Trethewey holds a class C chauffeur license from the state of Michigan. He is starting his own transit business after working as a chauffeur. He would like to obtain a CDL and tow a gooseneck trailer to transport cars, recreational vehicles or small trailers, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Valdez holds a driver's license from the state of Rhode Island. He currently works part-time and would like to obtain a CDL to seek employment opportunities driving CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Valimont holds a class C driver's license from the state of Texas. He is
Mr. Warnock holds a class M driver's license from the state of Indiana. He has 14 years experience driving CMV's in interstate commerce and has logged more than three million miles crossing 48 states. He recently was unable to pass the DOT hearing test and is no longer able to operate CMV's in interstate commerce. He would like to return to driving CMVs and possibly start his own business, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Willis holds a class C driver's license from the state of California. He has held a FAA Private Pilot Certificate since 2006 and flies private planes that weigh up to 12,500 pounds. He would like to obtain a CDL and pursue employment opportunities in the commercial transportation business, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Wilson holds a class C driver's license from the state of Georgia. He has experience driving forklifts and a super duty pickup truck for a private employer. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMV's in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
Mr. Wright holds a class C driver's license from the state of North Carolina. He has experience driving forklifts and commercial vehicles at his family-owned business site. He would like to obtain a CDL and drive CMVs in interstate commerce, if granted an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business June 25, 2012. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt thirteen individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions are effective May 25, 2012. The exemptions expire on May 25, 2014.
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202)–366–4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On April 6, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (77 FR 20879). That notice listed thirteen applicants' case histories. The thirteen individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the thirteen applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these thirteen drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 42 years. In the past 3 years, one of the drivers was involved in a crash, and one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 6, 2012 notice (77 FR 20879).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA–1998–3637.
We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the thirteen applicants, one of the drivers was involved in a crash and one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the thirteen applicants listed in the notice of April 6, 2012 (77 FR 20879).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has reviewed the driving histories for David L. Schachle, Richard D. Sparkman, and Joshua A. Wheaton and is in favor of granting Federal vision exemptions to them.
Based upon its evaluation of the thirteen exemption applications, FMCSA exempts Juan Castanon (NM), Donald F. Erke (MI), Ronald D. Flanery (KY), Mark G. Kleinheider (MO), Joseph C. Powell (VA), David L. Schachle (PA), Michael E. See (NY), James A. Settlemyre (IN), Steven K. Simone (KS), Mark J. Sobczyk (WI), Richard D. Sparkman (PA), Joshua A. Wheaton (PA) and John K. Wright (MT) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated February 23, 2012, the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway (EJ&E) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2012–0046.
EJ&E seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of an automatic block signal (ABS) system and a traffic control signal (TCS) system on the Lakefront Subdivision in Gary, IN. The discontinuance consists of the removal of the ABS from Milepost (MP) 9.8 (approach to Michigan Avenue) to MP 11.1 (Stockton 1); the removal of the TCS from MP 11.1 (Stockton 1) to MP 12.2 (Kirk Yard Junction), including removal of the Stockton 1 control point; and the removal of the TCS on the Stockton Lead at MP 12.2 to Kirk Yard Junction and Clark Road Lead at MP 11.9.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that, due to the lack of traffic on the Lakefront Line, the cost of maintenance on the signal systems is no longer feasible.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by July 9, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has
In its waiver request, SCRM petitioned FRA for a waiver from 49 CFR Section 213.233(c), which requires twice-weekly track inspections with at least 1 calendar day interval between inspections if the track carries passenger trains or more than 10 million gross tons of traffic during the preceding calendar year.
The petitioner is a volunteer, nonprofit 501(c)(3) Class III railroad museum that is located in Fairfield County near Winnsboro, SC, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. SCRM operates passenger trains on approximately 5 miles of the 11
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by July 9, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated April 13, 2012, the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad (MBCR) and Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a temporary waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2012–0043.
MBCR and MBTA seek relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 236.301,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by July 9, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated April 19, 2012, Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of its waiver of compliance from a provision of the Federal hours of service laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a), as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 21102(b). FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA–2000–7094.
In its petition, PVRR seeks relief from 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(2), which prohibits a train employee from remaining or going on duty for a period in excess of 12 consecutive hours. Title 49 U.S.C. 21102(b) allows railroads with 15 or fewer employees to petition for exemption from the restriction outlined at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(2), but the exemption may not authorize a carrier to require or allow its employees to be on duty more than a total of 16 hours in a 24-hour period. In support of the request, PVRR explained that its safety record is excellent and that an allowance for a train employee to exceed 12 hours of time on duty would only be used during emergencies and not as part of normal operations.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by July 9, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated May 4, 2012, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 235. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2012–0049.
UP seeks relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 235.5 to expedite successful installation of Positive Train Control (PTC), mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. UP will be updating first-generation, nonmicroprocessor-based coded track circuitry; eliminating certain searchlight signal mechanisms; and relocating some signals or making other changes that may require submission of an application and that have not been previously addressed. In requesting this waiver, UP proposes to perform minimal modifications to existing signal systems, while maintaining compliance with 49 CFR part 236, in the same manner and process as provided for under 49 CFR 235.7(c)(24)(vi). This relief will allow for expedited beneficial modification of existing signal systems in preparation for the installation of PTC, and it would reduce the administrative workload for both FRA and UP. Additionally, this relief would reduce the approval delay, while still providing FRA review and oversight of the proposed changes in the same manner as pole line elimination projects.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by July 9, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before June 25, 2012.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2012–0062. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W21–203, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–5979, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PASSION is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2012–0062 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Research & Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget for extension of currently approved reporting requirement. Earlier, a
Written comments should be submitted by June 25, 2012.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS–42, Room E34, RITA, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001, Telephone Number (202) 366–4406, Fax Number (202) 366–3383 or EMAIL
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Comments are invited on whether the proposed retention of records is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department of Transportation.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before June 25, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before June 25, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice of finding.
Pursuant to the authority contained in 31 U.S.C. 5318A, the Secretary of the Treasury, through his delegate, the Director of FinCEN, finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that JSC CredexBank is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern.
The finding made in this notice is effective as of May 25, 2012.
Regulatory Policy and Programs Division, FinCEN, (800) 949–2732.
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), Public Law 107–56. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amends the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314 and 5316–5332, to promote prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (“the Secretary”) to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“section 311”) added 31 U.S.C. section 5318A to the BSA, granting the Secretary the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, institution, class of transactions, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain “special measures” against the primary money laundering concern. Section 311 identifies factors for the Secretary to consider and Federal agencies to consult before the Secretary may conclude that a jurisdiction, institution, class of transaction, or type of account is of primary money laundering concern. The statute also provides similar procedures,
Taken as a whole, section 311 provides the Secretary with a range of options that can be adapted to target specific money laundering and terrorist financing concerns most effectively. Through the imposition of various special measures, the Secretary can gain more information about the jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, or accounts of concern; can more effectively monitor the respective jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, or accounts; or can prohibit U.S. financial institutions from involvement with jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, or accounts that pose a money laundering concern.
Before making a finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a financial institution is of primary money laundering concern, the Secretary is required to consult with both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The Secretary is also required by section 311, as amended, to consider “such information as the Secretary determines to be relevant, including the following potentially relevant factors:”
• The extent to which such financial institutions, transactions, or types of accounts are used to facilitate or promote money laundering in or through the jurisdiction, including any money laundering activity by organized criminal groups, international terrorists, or entities involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or missiles;
• The extent to which such institutions, transactions, or types of accounts are used for legitimate business purposes in the jurisdiction; and
• The extent to which such action is sufficient to ensure, with respect to transactions involving the jurisdiction and institutions operating in the jurisdiction, that the purposes of this subchapter continue to be fulfilled, and to guard against international money laundering and other financial crimes.
If the Secretary determines that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a financial institution is of primary
• Whether similar action has been or is being taken by other nations or multilateral groups;
• Whether the imposition of any particular special measures would create a significant competitive disadvantage, including any undue cost or burden associated with compliance, for financial institutions organized or licensed in the United States;
• The extent to which the action or the timing of the action would have a significant adverse systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system, or on legitimate business activities involving the particular jurisdiction; and
• The effect of the action on the United States national security and foreign policy.
JSC CredexBank (“Credex”) is a depository institution located and licensed in the Republic of Belarus that primarily services corporate entities.
The concentration of power in the hands of the Presidency and the lack of a system of checks and balances among the various branches of government are the greatest hindrances to the rule of law and transparency of governance in Belarus.
Under Belarusian law, most government transactions and those sanctioned by the President are exempt from reporting requirements.
Since January 2011, in response to the repression of democratic activists following fraudulent presidential elections in Belarus, the European Union (“EU”) has imposed a series of increasingly stiff sanctions against Belarus, including a travel ban and assets freeze extending to some 200 Belarusian officials and an assets freeze of three companies closely associated with President Lukashenko.
Based upon a review and analysis of the administrative record in this matter, consultations with relevant Federal agencies and departments, and after consideration of the factors enumerated in section 311, the Director of FinCEN has determined that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that Credex is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern. In addition to the bank's location in a high risk jurisdiction, FinCEN has reason to believe that Credex (1) has engaged in high volumes of transactions that are indicative of money laundering on behalf of shell corporations; and (2) has a history of ownership by shell corporations
Information made available to the USG shows that since 2006, Credex has engaged in highly questionable patterns of financial transactions that are indicative of money laundering. Such activity includes: high volumes of transactions involving foreign shell corporations incorporated and operating in high risk jurisdictions; disproportionate and evasive transactional behavior; and nested account
The facts surrounding these transactions are consistent with typical “red flags” regarding shell company activity identified in most banking standards, including wire transfer volumes that are extremely large in proportion to the asset size of the bank; transacting businesses sharing the same address, providing only a registered agent's address, or having other address inconsistencies; and frequent involvement of multiple jurisdictions or beneficiaries located in higher-risk offshore financial centers.
For example, large-dollar transactions originated from multiple shell corporations located at shared formation addresses were subsequently transferred through Credex to suspected shell corporations that also shared the same formation addresses in various jurisdictions. Specifically, between June and July 2007, two shell corporations located at known company formation addresses in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) made multiple payments totaling millions of U.S. dollars by utilizing accounts at Credex and another foreign financial institution for the benefit of a separate BVI company. Overall, numerous suspicious transactions (1) occurred in spurts for a brief period, in repetitive patterns, and then ceased without explanation, (2) were for unrelated goods and services that did not correspond to an apparent business relationship between the transacting parties, and (3) were remitted through multiple foreign banks with U.S. correspondent accounts with vague payment details. These patterns strongly suggest a failure of anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) controls at Credex and/or willfulness by the bank in carrying out transactions on behalf of shell corporations.
Furthermore, Credex has engaged in high volumes of transactions that are significantly disproportionate to the bank's level of capitalization. For example, from January to March 2010, information made available to the USG shows that Credex transferred nearly $1 billion to shell corporations in multiple jurisdictions—a substantial amount of wire activity for a bank of Credex's size. From 2007 to 2009, Credex averaged approximately $10 million in capitalization.
Information made available to the USG also shows that Credex engages in evasive conduct in a significant portion of its financial transactions. In some instances, critical information identifying Credex as the originating financial institution was omitted from the wire transaction details, or the stated purpose of the transaction involving Credex accountholders was inconsistent with the expected business profile of those companies. Such disproportionate volumes of activity compared to the bank's size, coupled with evasive behaviors, strongly suggest that Credex is vulnerable to money laundering and other financial crimes.
Credex maintains a total of 66 correspondent accounts,
According to available public information, Credex does not have direct correspondent relationships with U.S. financial institutions.
Given this evasive conduct, U.S. financial institutions remain particularly at risk of indirectly providing Credex with anonymous access to the U.S. financial system.
The lack of transparency—regarding the jurisdiction, beneficial ownership of the bank (discussed in Section II (D), below), and transactional activity with shell corporations—makes it difficult to assess the extent to which Credex is engaged in legitimate business. Thus, any legitimate use of Credex is significantly outweighed by the apparent use of Credex to facilitate or promote money laundering and other financial crimes.
As detailed above, FinCEN has reasonable grounds to conclude that Credex is being used to promote or facilitate international money laundering, and is therefore an institution of primary money laundering concern. Currently, there are no protective measures that specifically target Credex. Thus, finding Credex to be a financial institution of primary money laundering concern, which would allow consideration by the Secretary of special measures to be imposed on the institution under section 311, is a necessary first step to prevent Credex from facilitating money laundering or other financial crime through the U.S. financial system. The finding of primary money laundering concern will bring any criminal conduct occurring at or through Credex to the attention of the international financial community and will further limit the bank's ability to be used for money laundering or for other criminal purposes.
As outlined above, the pervasive lack of transparency surrounding Credex's business activities—including its high volume of suspicious transactions with shell corporations, the substantial uncertainty surrounding the transacting parties and purposes involved in those transactions, the bank's evasive conduct, and its operation in a high risk jurisdiction—makes it virtually impossible to discern the extent to which the bank is engaged in legitimate business, and most importantly, to evaluate its capacity to identify and mitigate risk and illicit finance. This situation is exacerbated by a similar lack of transparency in the bank's ownership, which has passed from one shell corporation to another, creating considerable uncertainty as to the identity of the true beneficial owner(s).
Credex's original registered owner, Ximex,
Since October 2009, Credex has been owned by Vicpart Holding SA (“Vicpart”), based in Fribourg, Switzerland.
Adding to these concerns are allegations of criminal involvement by Vicpart's management. According to information made available to the USG, two former Vicpart board members were charged with criminal activity, including document forgery. These individuals may have used companies registered to Vicpart's current address as part of their alleged criminal activity. Meanwhile, aside from the listing of a single individual as both a Vicpart director and the sole authorized signatory for the company, there is no other publicly available information on the current composition of Vicpart's board of directors.
Although the Credex Web site currently states that the single individual listed as a Vicpart director is also the “beneficial owner” of the company,
The ambiguity surrounding Vicpart's ownership is particularly concerning because the company also exhibits several indicators of typical shell corporation activity, and owns a bank that has been engaged in highly questionable patterns of transactions that are indicative of money laundering. For example, while Vicpart's Web site states that the company was incorporated in 1999,
Based on the foregoing factors, the Director of FinCEN hereby finds that Credex is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators.” The OCC is also giving notice that it has sent this collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by June 25, 2012.
Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mailstop 2–3, Attention: 1557–0243, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874–5274 or by electronic mail to
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557–0243, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 874–5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is requesting extension of OMB approval for this collection. There have been no changes to the requirements of the regulations, however, they have been transferred to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) pursuant to title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1990, July 21, 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), and republished as CFPB regulations (76 FR 78483 (December 19, 2011)). The burden estimates have been revised to remove the burden for OCC-regulated institutions with over $10 billion in assets, now carried by CFPB pursuant to section 1025 of the Dodd-
The Registry is intended to aggregate and improve the flow of information to and between regulators; provide increased accountability and tracking of mortgage loan originators; enhance consumer protections; reduce fraud in the residential mortgage loan origination process; and provide consumers with easily accessible information at no charge regarding the employment history of, and the publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against, mortgage loan originators.
The Agencies jointly developed and maintain a system for registering MLOs employed by Agency-regulated institutions with the Registry. The Agencies, at a minimum, must furnish or cause to be furnished to the Registry information concerning the MLOs identity, including: (1) Fingerprints for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and any other relevant governmental agency for a State and national criminal background check; and (2) personal history and experience, including authorization for the Registry to obtain information related to any administrative, civil, or criminal findings by any governmental jurisdiction.
Unless the de minimis exception or a different implementation period applies, 12 CFR 1007.103(a) requires an employee of a institution who is engaged in the business of a MLO to register with the Registry, maintain such registration, and obtain a unique identifier. Under § 1007.103(b), an institution must require each such registration to be renewed annually and updated within 30 days of the occurrence of specified events. Section 1007.103(d) sets forth the categories of information that an employee, or the employing institution in the employee's behalf, must submit to the Registry, along with the employee's attestation as to the correctness of the information supplied, and an authorization to obtain further information.
Section 1007.105 (b) requires the MLO to provide the unique identifier to a consumer upon request.
Section 1007.103(e) specifies the institution and employee information that an institution must submit to the Registry in connection with the initial registration of one or more MLOs, and thereafter update.
Section 1007.105(a) requires the institution to make the unique identifier of MLO employees available to consumers in a manner and method practicable to the institution.
• Section 1007.103(d)(1)(xii) requires the collection of MLO employee fingerprints.
• Section 1007.104 requires that a institution employing MLOs to:
○ Adopt and follow written policies and procedures, at a minimum addressing certain specified areas, but otherwise appropriate to the nature, size and complexity of their mortgage lending activities.
○ Establish reasonable procedures and tracking systems for monitoring registration compliance.
○ Establish a process for, and maintain records related to, employee criminal history background reports and actions taken with respect thereto.
On March 15, 2012, the OCC issued a 60-day
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003.”
Comments must be received by July 24, 2012.
Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mailstop 2–3, Attention: 1557–0237, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874–5274 or by electronic mail to
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557–0237, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary H. Gottlieb, (202) 874–5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
There have been no changes to the requirements of the regulations; however, a portion of the regulations have been transferred to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) pursuant to title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1955, July 21, 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), and republished as CFPB regulations (76 FR 79308 (December 21, 2011)). The transferred regulations, which relate to address discrepancies, were found at 12 CFR 41.82, and have now been moved to 12 CFR 1022.82. The burden estimates for this portion of the collection have been revised to remove the burden attributable to OCC-regulated institutions with over $10 billion in total assets, now carried by CFPB pursuant to section 1025 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The OCC retains enforcement authority for its institutions with total assets of $10 billion or less.
• Guidelines for financial institutions and creditors regarding identity theft with respect to their account holders and customers. In developing the guidelines, the Agencies were required to identify patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that indicate the possible existence of identity theft. The guidelines must be updated as often as necessary, and cannot be inconsistent with the policies and procedures required under section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 31 U.S.C. 5318(l).
• Regulations requiring each financial institution and each creditor to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines to identify possible risks to account holders or customers or to the safety and soundness of the institution or creditor.
• Regulations generally requiring credit and debit card issuers to assess the validity of change of address requests under certain circumstances.
Section 315 of the FACT Act amended section 605 of the FCRA to require the Agencies to issue regulations
• Enable a user to form a reasonable belief that it knows the identity of the person for whom it has obtained a consumer report, and
• Reconcile the address of the consumer with the CRA, if the user establishes a continuing relationship with the consumer and regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the CRA.
As required by section 114 of the FACT Act, appendix J to 12 CFR part 41 contains guidelines for financial institutions and creditors to use in identifying patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that indicate the possible existence of identity theft. In addition, 12 CFR 41.90 requires each financial institution or creditor that is a national bank, Federal branch or agency of a foreign bank, and any of their operating subsidiaries that are not functionally regulated (bank), to establish reasonable policies and procedures to address the risk of identity theft that incorporate the guidelines. Pursuant to § 41.91, credit card and debit card issuers must implement reasonable policies and procedures to assess the validity of a request for a change of address under certain circumstances.
Section 41.90 requires each OCC regulated financial institution or creditor that offers or maintains one or more covered accounts to develop and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program (Program). In developing the Program, financial institutions and creditors are required to consider the guidelines in appendix J and include those that are appropriate. The initial Program must be approved by the board of directors or an appropriate committee thereof. The board, an appropriate committee thereof, or a designated employee at the level of senior management must be involved in the oversight of the Program. In addition, staff members must be trained to carry out the Program. Pursuant to § 41.91, each credit and debit card issuer is required to establish and implement policies and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request under certain circumstances. Before issuing an additional or replacement card, the card issuer must notify the cardholder or use another means to assess the validity of the change of address.
As required by section 315 of the FACT Act, § 1022.82 requires users of consumer reports to have reasonable policies and procedures that must be followed when a user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a credit reporting agency (CRA).
Section 1022.82 requires each user of consumer reports to develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures designed to enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer report relates to the consumer about whom it requested the report when it receives a notice of address discrepancy from a CRA. A user of consumer reports also must develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures for furnishing an address for the consumer that the user has reasonably confirmed to be accurate to the CRA from which it receives a notice of address discrepancy when the user can: (1) Form a reasonable belief that the consumer report relates to the consumer about whom the user has requested the report; (2) establish a continuing relationship with the consumer and; (3) establish that it regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the CRA from which it received the notice of address discrepancy.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for OMB approval, and become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Financial Management Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. By this notice, the Financial Management Service solicits comments concerning the form “States Where Licensed for Surety.”
Written comments should be received on or before July 24, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Highway, Records and Information Management Branch, Room 135, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Rose Miller, Manager, Surety Bond Branch, Room 632F, 3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (202) 874–6850.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of open meeting.
In 1998 the Internal Revenue Service established the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC).The primary purpose of ETAAC is to provide an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues in support of the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. The ETAAC members convey the public's perceptions of the IRS electronic tax administration activities, offer constructive observations about current or proposed policies, programs, and procedures, and suggest improvements. The ETAAC will share their recommendations and discuss the Annual Report to Congress.
The topics for discussion include:
Last-minute changes to these topics are possible and could prevent advance notice.
There will be a meeting of the ETAAC on Wednesday, June 20, 2012. You must register in advance to be put on a guest list to attend the meeting. This meeting will be open to the public, and will be in a room that accommodates approximately 40 people, including members of ETAAC and IRS officials.
Seats are available to members of the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Escorts will be provided. Attendees are encouraged to arrive 30 minutes before the meeting begins. Members of the public may file written statements sharing ideas for electronic tax administration. Send written statements to
The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 2140, Washington, DC 20024.
You must provide your name in advance for the guest list and be able to show your
ETAAC reports to the Director, Return Preparer Office. The ETAAC's duties are to research, analyze, consider, and make recommendations on a wide range of electronic tax administrative issues and to provide input into the development and implementation of the strategic plan for electronic tax administration. ETAAC members are not paid for their time or services, but consistent with Federal regulations, they are reimbursed for their travel and lodging expenses to attend public meetings and working sessions each year.
(a) Deputy Chief Executive Officer;
(b) Vice President, Department of Policy and Evaluation;
(c) Chief of Staff;
(d) Vice President, Department of Compact Operations;
(e) Senior Advisor;
(f) Vice President, Department of Congressional and Public Affairs;
(g) Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary; and
(h) Vice President, Department of Administration and Finance.
(b) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 1(a)–(h) of this memorandum shall act as CEO of the MCC unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the Act.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this memorandum, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum in designating an acting CEO of the MCC.
(a) Chief Operating Officer;
(b) Executive for Agency Services;
(c) Director, National Personnel Records Center; and
(d) Director, George W. Bush Library.
(b) No individual listed in section 1(a)–(d) of this memorandum shall act as Archivist unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, as amended.
(c) Notwithstanding the provision of this memorandum, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum in designating an acting Archivist.
(a) General Counsel;
(b) Chief of Staff;
(c) Associate Director, Retirement Services;
(d) Associate Director, Employee Services;
(e) Director, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs;
(f) Associate Director, Federal Investigative Services;
(g) Chief Financial Officer;
(h) Associate Director, Human Resources Solutions;
(i) Director, Healthcare and Insurance; and
(j) Director, Planning and Policy Analysis.
(b) No individual listed in section 1 of this memorandum shall act as Director unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the Act.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this memorandum, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum in designating an acting Director.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its test procedures for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products (which includes cooktops, ovens, and ranges) to address the measurement of active mode fan-only energy use. This SNOPR also addresses energy and water use associated with dishwasher water softeners, the energy test cycle for dishwashers with a separate soil-sensing cycle, and the normal cycle definition, power supply and detergent dosing for dishwashers. The proposal would also update the industry test method specified in the dehumidifier test procedure, eliminate measurement of gas pilot light energy use in the cooking products test procedure, and remove an obsolete energy efficiency metric in the dishwasher test procedure.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this SNOPR submitted no later than June 25, 2012. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.
Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR for Test Procedures for Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Conventional Cooking Products, and provide docket number EERE–2010–BT–TP–0039 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AC01. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).
A link to the docket web page can be found at:
Mr. Wes Anderson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–7335. Email:
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email:
For further information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Email:
Title III, Part B
Under the Act, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) establishing Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use: (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures in any enforcement action to determine whether the products comply with these energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by DOE, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))
EPCA, in relevant part, require DOE to amend the test procedures for all residential covered products to include measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption. Specifically, EPCA provides definitions of “standby mode” and “off mode” (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) and permits DOE to amend these definitions in the context of a given product (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B)). The statute requires integration of such energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product, unless the Secretary determines that—
(i) the current test procedures for a covered product already fully account for and incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the covered product; or
(ii) such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)).
Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of IEC Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” and IEC Standard 62087, “Methods of measurement for the power consumption of audio, video, and related equipment.”
DOE's test procedure for dishwashers is found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C. DOE originally established its test procedure for dishwashers in 1977. 42 FR 39964 (August 8, 1977). Since that time, the dishwasher test procedure has undergone a number of amendments, as discussed below. In 1983, DOE amended the test procedure to revise the representative average-use cycles to more accurately reflect consumer use and to address dishwashers that use 120 °F inlet water. 48 FR 9202 (March 3, 1983). DOE amended the test procedure again in 1984 to redefine the term “water heating dishwasher.” 49 FR 46533 (Nov. 27, 1984). In 1987, DOE amended the test procedure to address models that use 50 °F inlet water. 52 FR 47549 (Dec. 15, 1987). In 2001, DOE revised the test procedure's testing specifications to improve testing repeatability, changed the definitions of “compact dishwasher” and “standard dishwasher,” and reduced the average number of use cycles per year from 322 to 264. 66 FR 65091, 65095–97 (Dec. 18, 2001). In 2003, DOE again revised the test procedure to more accurately measure dishwasher efficiency, energy use, and water use. The 2003 dishwasher test procedure amendments included the following revisions: (1) The addition of a method to rate the efficiency of soil-sensing products; (2) the addition of a method to measure standby power; and (3) a reduction in the average-use cycles per year from 264 to 215. 68 FR 51887, 51899–903 (August 29, 2003). The current version of the test procedure includes provisions for determining estimated annual energy use (EAEU), estimated annual operating cost (EAOC), energy factor (EF) expressed in cycles per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and water consumption expressed in gallons per cycle. 10 CFR 430.23(c).
The DOE test procedure for dehumidifiers is found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X. EPCA specifies that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) test criteria used under the ENERGY STAR
DOE's test procedures for conventional ranges, cooktops, and ovens (including microwave ovens) are
In today's SNOPR, DOE proposes amendments to its cooking products test procedure for only conventional cooking products. DOE has initiated a separate test procedure rulemaking to address standby mode and off mode power consumption for microwave ovens. The microwaves rulemaking was initiated in response to comments from interested parties on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) for an earlier rulemaking concerning energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, cooking products, and commercial clothes washers published on November 15, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the November 2007 ANOPR) (72 FR 64432). As discussed in the subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for that standards rulemaking, interested parties stated generally that DOE should amend the test procedures for all types of cooking products to allow for measurement of standby mode energy use in order to implement a standby power energy conservation standard. 73 FR 62034, 62043–44 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE published a NOPR proposing amendments to the microwave oven test procedure for standby mode and off mode in the
EPCA requires DOE to amend the test procedures for covered products to address standby mode and off mode energy consumption. Specifically, the amendments require DOE to integrate standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for that product unless the current test procedures already fully account for such consumption. If integration is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of IEC Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” and IEC Standard 62087, “Methods of measurement for the power consumption of audio, video, and related equipment.”
On December 2, 2010, DOE published a NOPR (hereafter called the December 2010 NOPR) in which it proposed to incorporate by reference into the test procedures for dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products specific provisions from IEC Standard 62301 “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” First Edition 2005–06 (IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) or “First Edition”) regarding test conditions and test procedures for measuring standby mode and off mode power consumption. 75 FR 75290, 75295–97. DOE also proposed to incorporate into each test procedure definitions of “active mode,” “standby mode,” and “off mode” based on the definitions for those terms provided in the most current draft of an updated version of IEC Standard 62301.
Based upon the public comment received on the December 2010 NOPR, DOE further analyzed the draft materials associated with IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition), which were in an advanced stage of development. Shortly thereafter, the IEC adopted and published IEC Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” Edition 2.0 2011–01 (IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) or “Second Edition”) on January 27, 2011. Consistent with its statutory mandate, DOE reviewed this latest version of the IEC standard and agreed that it improves some measurements of standby mode and off mode energy use. Accordingly, DOE proposed in an SNOPR published in the
Upon further review of the public comment received on its proposals, DOE decided to further analyze the energy use of an air-circulating fan during a portion of cycle finished mode for dishwashers and conventional cooking products. DOE's analysis suggests that measurement of the energy use during this “fan-only” mode (considered part of the active mode) could improve the measurement of dishwasher and conventional cooking product energy use. Accordingly, DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to amend the DOE test procedures for residential dishwashers and conventional cooking products to incorporate the measurement of energy use in fan-only mode in the energy efficiency metrics.
DOE also proposes amendments to the dishwasher test procedure to measure the annual energy and water use associated with periodic water softener system regeneration for those dishwashers equipped with such systems. DOE's proposal in today's SNOPR considers: (1) the data on this subject accompanying petitions for waiver from the dishwasher test procedure for water-softening dishwashers, submitted by manufacturers; the methodology for addressing water softener system regeneration that was provided in waivers that were subsequently granted to manufacturers; and additional research and analysis that DOE conducted for today's SNOPR.
DOE also proposes in today's SNOPR to clarify in the dishwasher test procedure: (1) The normal cycle definition; (2) power supply requirements during testing; (3) energy test cycle requirements for dishwashers with a separate soil-sensing cycle; (4) test load specifications and soiling requirements; and (5) detergent dosing specifications.
The proposal would also update the industry test method specified in the dehumidifier test procedure. As noted above, EPCA specifies that the EPA's test criteria used under the ENERGY STAR program must serve as the basis for the test procedure for dehumidifiers. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)) The ENERGY STAR test criteria effective in January 2001 require that ANSI/AHAM Standard DH–1, “Dehumidifiers,” be used to measure energy use. Because the version of the DH–1 standard was not specified in the ENERGY STAR test criteria, DOE proposes to incorporate the most current version of the DH–1 standard (2008) into the test procedure for dehumidifiers.
Today's proposal would also eliminate measures of pilot light energy consumption from the cooking products test procedure. In a final rule published April 8, 2009, DOE established standards that prohibit constant burning pilot lights in gas cooking products manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. DOE also proposes in today's SNOPR to remove the calculation of an obsolete energy efficiency metric, EF, from the dishwasher test procedure because the current dishwasher energy conservation standards no longer require it for compliance or representations.
Other than the specific amendments newly proposed in today's SNOPR, DOE continues to propose the test procedure amendments originally included in the December 2010 NOPR and the September 2011 SNOPR. For the reader's convenience, DOE has reproduced in this SNOPR the entire body of proposed regulatory text from the December 2010 NOPR and September 2011 SNOPR, further amended as appropriate according to today's proposals. DOE's supporting analysis and discussion for the portions of the proposed regulatory text not affected by this SNOPR may be found in the December 2010 NOPR (75 FR 75290 (Dec. 2, 2010)) and the September 2011 SNOPR (76 FR 58346 (Sept. 20, 2011)).
In the December 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to include the measurement of energy use in “cycle finished” mode for dishwashers and conventional cooking products, defined as “a mode that provides continuous status display following operation in active mode.” 75 FR 75290, 75298–99 (Dec. 2, 2010). DOE maintained this proposed definition in the September 2011 SNOPR. 76 FR 58346 (Sept. 20, 2011).
DOE received comments on the December 2010 NOPR and September 2011 SNOPR which noted that certain components in addition to a continuous status display could be energized for at least a portion of cycle finished mode in these products. Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) asked whether DOE had identified other energy-consuming sources not covered in by the definition of cycle finished mode, such as fans used in conventional ovens. Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), jointly (hereafter referred to as “California Utilities”); ASAP, American Council for Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), jointly (hereafter referred to as the “NOPR Joint Comment”); and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) commented that some models of dishwashers and conventional cooking products currently on the market contain fans or other components that continue to run after the active cycles are finished and that may consume significantly more power than a continuous display. ASAP, ACEEE, and NCLC, jointly (hereafter referred to as the “SNOPR Joint Comment”), ASAP individually, the California Utilities, the NOPR Joint Comment, and PG&E stated that DOE should expand the definition of cycle finished mode for dishwashers and conventional cooking products to include any energy-consuming features following operation in active mode. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 60–61;
In considering these comments, DOE researched the functions, average power consumption, and duration of operation of air circulation fans in both dishwashers and conventional cooking products at the completion of the active cycle. The following sections discuss the results of these analyses separately for the two product types.
Certain dishwashers incorporate an air circulation fan to transfer moisture from the dishware and out of the unit through an open vent more effectively than natural convection through the vent, The air circulation fan may remain energized for a period after the drying portion of an active cycle is complete, during which time the continuous status display indicates to the consumer that the cycle has finished. DOE research suggests that such fans typically require approximately 12 to 20 watts (W) of additional input power, and run 10 minutes to 4 hours after completion of the active cycle, depending on the type of drying cycle setting selected by the user. Based on this information, DOE calculated the range of annual energy consumption associated with an air circulation fan operating after the end of the active cycle as (12 to 20 W) × (10 minutes to 4 hours) × (215 estimated number of dishwashing cycles according to the DOE test procedure) = 0.4 to 17 kWh. The higher end of the range is greater than 5 percent of the maximum allowable annual energy consumption for a standard dishwasher (355 kWh). DOE proposes to measure the energy consumption associated with an air circulation fan operating at the end of the active cycle as described in section III.C.
In the December 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to define “standby mode” as any mode where the product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist for an indefinite time: (a) to facilitate the activation of other modes (including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer; or (b) continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. As noted previously, cycle finished mode was proposed in the December 2010 NOPR as a mode that provides continuous status display following operation in active mode, which would classify cycle finished mode as a standby mode. 75 FR 75290, 75298–99 (Dec. 2, 2010). DOE maintained these proposed definitions in the September 2011 SNOPR. 76 FR 58346, 58349–50 (Sept. 20, 2011). DOE recognizes that the operation of an air circulation fan for a limited duration following the active cycle would preclude such a “fan-only” mode from consideration as cycle finished mode and, more generally, a standby mode under the proposed definitions. Therefore, DOE considers fan-only mode to be an active mode uniquely associated with the active cycle. DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to define fan-only mode as “an active mode in which a fan circulates air for a finite period of time after the end of the cycle, as indicated to the consumer.”
Conventional ovens operate at cavity temperatures typically greater than 300 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) during an active cooking cycle. To maintain safe temperatures of the surrounding surfaces during the active cycle and to cool internal oven components after completion of the cycle, conventional ovens and ranges often incorporate an air circulation fan. DOE research indicates that the air circulation fan may be activated at the end of the active cooking cycle based on some combination of the oven cavity internal temperature and cooking function (
DOE research suggests that the air circulation fans in conventional ovens and ranges typically require approximately 16 to 50 W of input power. To estimate the number of annual cooking cycles for each conventional oven and range, DOE reviewed available consumer usage data. DOE's Energy Information Agency (EIA) conducts a Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) that collects energy-related data for occupied primary housing units in the United States. The 2009 RECS collected data from 12,083 housing units representing over 113 million households.
As with dishwashers, DOE also tentatively concludes that operation of the fan after the end of the active cycle,
The current dishwasher test procedure does not account specifically for the regeneration operation of the water softener in its measurement of energy and water use. Manufacturers have filed petitions for waiver from the test procedure applicable to dishwashers for units that contain a built-in water softener regeneration system, asserting that: (1) The amount of water consumed by the regeneration operation of a water softener in a dishwasher is very small, but varies significantly depending on the adjustment of the softener; (2) the regeneration operation takes place infrequently and is related to the level of water hardness; and (3) including this water use in the measurement of water consumption during an individual energy test cycle could overstate water and energy use.
These manufacturers estimated through in-house measurements that the water softener regeneration occurs once every six active mode cycles, and that the system consumes approximately 23 gallons of water and 4 kWh of electricity per year, assuming an average U.S. water hardness of 217 milligrams per liter (mg/L). One manufacturer also estimated that the system consumes 4.97 L of water per regeneration cycle, and that approximately 50 percent of U.S. households that have hard water have their entire water supply softened. The manufacturers requested approval to measure the water consumption of dishwashers having water softeners without including the water consumed by the dishwasher during softener regeneration, as outlined in European Standard EN 50242, “Electric Dishwashers for Household Use—Methods for Measuring the Performance.”
DOE granted waivers to these manufacturers that provided an alternate means to account for the water and energy used during water softener regeneration. The waivers permitted these manufacturers to measure water and energy consumption of the specified dishwasher models that have water softener regeneration systems according to the following methodology:
(a) The DOE test is initiated on a cycle immediately following a regeneration cycle.
(b) Water and energy consumption shall be measured according to the DOE test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C, ensuring that regeneration does not take place during the test.
(c) Constant values of 23 gallons/year of water and 4 kWh/year of energy, representing the water and energy consumption associated with water softener regeneration, shall be added to the estimated annual energy and water use.
(d) Should regeneration happen during the DOE test, the water consumed during water softener regeneration can be disregarded for the per cycle water and energy consumption measurement, provided constant values are added to the estimated annual energy and water use. The constant values in the waivers were specified as 23 gallons/year of water and 4 kWh/year of energy and 47.6 gallons/year of water and 8 kWh/year of energy, respectively. (DOE did not find evidence that 50 percent of U.S. households with hard water have their entire water supply softened.)
(e) Representations about the energy use of water-softening dishwashers that are the subject of such waivers for compliance, marketing, or other purposes may be made only to the extent that such products have been testing according to this methodology.
In response to the December 2010 NOPR and September 2011 SNOPR, DOE received comments regarding the measurement of energy and water use for dishwasher water softener regeneration. BSH Home Appliances Corporation (BSH) and Earthjustice noted the waiver granted to Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and BSH suggested that DOE consider for this rulemaking the same approach of adding the incremental energy use associated with the regeneration process. Earthjustice requested that DOE inform the public of its plans to amend the dishwasher test procedure accordingly. (BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 37; Earthjustice, No. 15 at p. 1) BSH commented that recent interpretations have considered water softener regeneration to be part of active mode, and that DOE treats it differently than the IEC does. According to BSH, the IEC does not consider regeneration as active mode, but as a secondary process separate from washing the dishware. BSH further commented that there are limited data in the United States regarding how many dishwashers have the regeneration function, and how often this function is activated. BSH stated
In response to these comments, DOE conducted analysis for today's SNOPR in support of potential dishwasher test procedure amendments to address water softener regeneration.
Based on review of the data submitted by manufacturers in their petitions for waiver, product database research, and manufacturer interviews, DOE observed that some areas in the United States have hard municipal or locally supplied water, defined as having calcium ion concentrations higher than 180 parts per million (ppm). Hard water prevents soaps and detergents from properly sudsing, resulting in unsatisfactory cleaning performance. To address this issue, some residential dishwashers have a built-in water softening system to minimize excess use of detergent and re-cleaning of the dishware due to unsatisfactory washing. The water softener system may consist of a resin bed which provides an ion exchange to remove calcium and magnesium ions from the water, by swapping sodium ions bonded to the resin with the calcium and magnesium ions. Over time, the calcium and magnesium replace all the sodium in the resin bed, which therefore must be periodically recharged with sodium by flushing a saline solution over it, a process which is referred to as regeneration. During a cycle which includes a regeneration process, additional water is mixed with sodium chloride (salt) supplied by the consumer in a compartment separate from the detergent compartment to create the saline solution, and this incremental water consumption requires energy to heat it to the same temperature as is used for the active cycle.
The frequency of the water softener regeneration is dependent on the following:
(a) Amount of water consumed in a normal cycle;
(b) Hardness of the water at the inlet to the dishwasher; and
(c) Hardness level set by the user on the unit as per manufacturer's instructions. Typically, the user is asked to determine the hardness of the water (in ppm) and to set the level in the dishwasher accordingly. If the hardness level in the unit is set to 0, the water softening system will not be used and thus a regeneration process will take place infrequently or never.
As noted previously, according to manufacturer data, the average water hardness in U.S. households is 217 ppm (12.6 grains per gallon), and that at this level, the regeneration process will take place in their dishwashers equipped with built-in water softening systems approximately once every six active cycles, or 36 times per year. DOE does not have additional information regarding whether this frequency is representative of other dishwashers with built-in water softening systems, the prevalence of home water softening systems, and consumer usage habits. Therefore, DOE is proposing to retain the value of 36 regeneration events per year, but seeks comment and information on a representative frequency.
DOE then examined the electrical and water heating energy consumption, along with water consumption, to determine appropriate test procedure amendments for representative dishwashers with built-in water softening systems. Machine electrical energy consumption associated with the regeneration process primarily consists of the energy consumed to activate a dedicated solenoid valve to the water softening system and additional activation of the drain pump to circulate and flush the saline solution, as well as any electrical energy needed to heat the water internally. Because the regeneration process takes place over approximately 20 seconds, and because the electrical power associated with the water handling components is estimated by DOE based on its research to be less than 100 W, the maximum electrical energy use per regeneration process for the water handling components is 0.0005 kWh. Assuming 36 regeneration events occur per year, the annual electrical energy use associated with water softener regeneration would be only 0.02 kWh, or less than 0.01 percent of the maximum allowable annual energy use in active mode and standby mode for standard dishwashers. (DOE is not aware of any compact dishwashers with built-in water softening systems.) Therefore, the primary machine electrical energy use during water softener regeneration is associated with internal water heating.
According to the data submitted by manufacturers in their petitions for waiver, the volume of water consumed for a water softener regeneration process ranges between 2.4 and 5 L (0.63 to 1.32 gallons) per active cycle that includes regeneration. Since regeneration is estimated to occur once every six active cycles, this would correspond to an average allocation of 0.1 to 0.2 gallons per active cycle for the regeneration process. These average water consumption values should be adjusted to account for the percentage of homes with hard water that use home water softening systems instead of the dishwasher built-in system, but DOE lacks data to assign a value to this percentage, and for the purposes of today's SNOPR is proposing to assume that all dishwashers with built-in water softeners perform the periodic regeneration. The current residential dishwasher energy conservation standards allow for a maximum water consumption of 6.5 gallons per cycle for standard dishwashers, so that water softener water consumption would represent at least 2 percent of the allowable water consumption. DOE proposes to measure the water consumption associated with regeneration for dishwashers with built-in water softening systems. DOE requests data and information on this percentage, as well as the incremental water consumption associated with built-in water softener regeneration.
Similarly, DOE examined the water-heating energy consumption for water softener regeneration, based on the allocation of 0.1 to 0.2 gallons of additional water consumption per active cycle. The water-heating energy use was calculated as (0.1 to 0.2 gallons per active cycle) × (the nominal temperature rise of 90 °F from the nominal cold water temperature of 50 °F to the nominal hot water temperature in the dishwasher of 140 °F) × (specific heat of water, 0.0024 kWh per gallon per °F) × (1−percentage of households with home water softening systems) × (215 active cycles per year). This would be calculated as 4.6 to 9.2 kWh per year if all households with hard water were assumed to require the use of the dishwasher water softening system, which represents at least 1 percent of the maximum allowable annual energy use of 355 kWh for standard dishwashers. Because the water heating may take place internally in the dishwasher or externally in the home water heater, DOE proposes to measure the machine electrical energy consumption as well as the water consumption associated with water softener regeneration. As discussed previously, DOE does not have information regarding the percentage of households with hard water that use home water softening systems and is therefore proposing in today's SNOPR to assign a value of zero to this percentage. DOE seeks comment on this percentage and the inclusion of water-heating energy use associated with water softener regeneration in the proposed
In the December 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed two possible approaches for measuring energy consumption in modes other than active washing mode for dishwashers and active cooking mode for conventional cooking products;
As an alternate approach, DOE proposed measuring power consumption for only off and inactive modes for the purpose of calculating the total energy consumed in all low-power modes. Using this approach, energy use in delay start and cycle finished mode would be accounted for by allocating all the hours not associated with active washing or cooking mode to the inactive (standby) and off modes and then measuring standby or off mode power. DOE retained these proposals in the September 2011 SNOPR.
DOE received multiple comments in response to the December 2010 NOPR regarding the proposed approaches for measuring energy use in low-power modes as well as the allocation of hours associated with each low-power mode. ASAP and the NOPR Joint Comment stated that, although currently the annual energy consumption in certain non-active modes may represent a small fraction of total annual energy consumption, DOE should establish test procedures that include measurements of energy consumption in each non-active mode to incentivize manufacturers to reduce power consumption in these modes. ASAP commented that DOE should consider not just those products that are currently on the market, but those that may be introduced in the next 5 or 7 years as well. ASAP and the NOPR Joint Comment stated that if the test procedures do not measure power consumption in each non-active mode, the energy consumption of any new features in these modes that are introduced to products will not be captured. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 87–88, 109; NOPR Joint Comment, No. 13 at pp. 5–6) The SNOPR Joint Comment supported the approach of measuring delay start and all non-active modes separately. (SNOPR Joint Comment, No. 22 at pp. 1–2) NEEA commented that if DOE defines cycle finished mode as an inactive mode, then the energy consumption in all standby and off modes must be measured as part of the test procedure, and the hours spent in each component of the inactive mode must be based on at least some data from the testing of actual products in the field. (NEEA, No. 11 at p. 5).
Whirlpool supports using the proposed alternate approach, which would specify hours for the off and inactive modes when calculating energy use. According to Whirlpool, delay start and cycle finished modes should not be separately measured because they represent a
Today's SNOPR does not propose to include provisions to measure delay start mode or cycle finished mode separately from the active washing or cooking mode. Instead, today's SNOPR proposes the alternate approach, in which all low-power modes are allocated to the inactive and off modes, depending on which of these modes is present. DOE believes that its assumption set forth in the December 2010 NOPR that the power consumption in each of these low-power modes is similar remains valid, and that in such a case, measuring power consumption of each mode separately would introduce significant test burden without a corresponding improvement in a representative measure of annual energy use.
DOE is, however, proposing to require separate measurement of fan-only mode. The power consumption and duration of this mode may vary significantly from product to product, and the energy use associated with this mode may in some cases represent a larger percentage of annual energy consumption than the energy use in the low-power modes. For the dishwasher test procedure, DOE is proposing to require the measurement of the energy consumption and duration of fan-only mode for each cycle run as part of the test procedure, averaging these values when multiple cycles are required (
DOE is also proposing provisions in the amended dishwasher test procedure that would include the machine energy consumption, water consumption, and water-heating energy consumption associated with the active mode function of water softener regeneration. DOE analysis suggests that the water consumption for an active cycle including water softener regeneration is typically more than 10 percent higher than the water consumption for an
The water-heating energy associated with water-softening dishwashers that operate at a nominal 120 °F or 140 °F inlet temperature would be calculated as (regeneration water consumption per active cycle) × (the temperature rise from the nominal cold water temperature of 50 °F to the nominal inlet water temperature) × (specific heat of water, 0.0024 kWh per gallon per °F) for electric water heaters. For gas-heated or oil-heated water, the water-heating energy would be calculated as (regeneration water consumption per active cycle) × (the temperature rise from the nominal cold water temperature of 50 °F to the nominal inlet water temperature) × (specific heat of water, 8.2 Btus per gallon per °F)/(the nominal heat recovery efficiency of a gas or oil water heater, 0.75).
DOE also proposes an alternate method to account for the machine energy consumption, water consumption, and water heating consumption associated with water softener regeneration. Under the alternate approach, for those units with built-in water softening systems, manufacturers would add constant values for these amounts. Based on manufacturer data, these amounts can range from 23 gallons/year—47.6 gallons/year and 4 kWh/year—8 kWh/year. DOE seeks comments and data on appropriate constant values, as well as whether the constant values should vary based on certain criteria.
During recent implementation of the dishwasher test procedure in third-party labs, interested parties raised questions regarding the appropriate interpretation of certain provisions. DOE is proposing clarifications to these provisions in order to ensure that the procedure is uniformly applied during testing. The proposed amendments discussed in this section would apply to all dishwasher testing upon the effective date of the amended test procedure (
The DOE dishwasher current defines the normal cycle as “the cycle type recommended by the manufacturer for completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes including the power-dry feature.” (Section 1.6 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C) DOE is aware that certain dishwashers have multiple wash and/or drying temperature options for the cycle setting required under the normal cycle definition. For these dishwashers, DOE clarifies in the definition that the normal cycle shall include the wash and drying temperature options recommended by the manufacturer for completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes including the power-dry feature. DOE seeks comment on the wash and drying temperature options to be selected in the case that the cycle setting required under the normal cycle definition has multiple wash and/or drying temperature options but the manufacturer does not provide such a recommendation.
The current DOE dishwasher test procedure defines a soil-sensing dishwasher as “a dishwasher that has the ability to adjust any energy consuming aspect of a wash cycle based on the soil load of the dishes.” (Section 1.12 of appendix C) For certain soil-sensing dishwashers, DOE is aware that the turbidity sensor may lose its calibration during a power supply interruption. DOE observed, for example, during its energy testing of a limited sample of soil-sensing dishwashers that the first cycle after a power supply interruption consumed as much as 30-percent higher energy and 50-percent higher water than subsequent cycles. As a result, removing the power supply to these units in between energy test cycles may lead to unrepresentative results. DOE also recognizes that, for soil-sensing units, any turbidity sensor calibration must be completed prior to conducting the water softening regeneration test and active mode cycle according to newly proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2 of appendix C, respectively. Therefore, DOE proposes that, for soil-sensing dishwashers: (1) the cycle setting for the active mode cycle (in which the soil sensor is active) be selected for the preconditioning cycle described in newly proposed section 2.9 of appendix C, and (2) the power supply to the unit be continuously maintained throughout testing, including after the preconditioning cycle and in between all energy test cycles.
DOE is aware of certain soil-sensing dishwasher models that contain a soil-sensing cycle selection separate from a non-soil-sensing normal cycle. Such a cycle, if selected as the test cycle, may lead to lower water and energy use, as the unit would be unable to differentiate between the loads for sensor heavy, sensor medium, and sensor light
For soil-sensing dishwashers, the current dishwasher test procedure provides instructions in section 2.6.3 of appendix C on the preparation of the test loads for the sensor heavy, sensor medium, and sensor light response. In each case, the test load is defined as a number of place settings plus serving pieces, as specified in section 2.7 of appendix C, and a subset of those place settings must be soiled according to ANSI/AHAM DW–1–1992, “Household Electric Dishwashers” (DW–1–1992), while the remaining place settings, serving pieces, and all flatware are not soiled. DOE recognizes that while individual dishware, glassware, and flatware items are specified in section 2.7 of appendix C, the test procedure does not define which items a “place setting” comprises. Although not referenced specifically in appendix C, DW–1–1992 defines a place setting as the dishware, glasses, and flatware associated with a table serving for one person, which consists of one cup, one saucer, one dinner plate, one bread and butter plate, one fruit bowl, one glass, one dinner fork, one salad fork, one knife, and two teaspoons. DW–1–1992 also defines “serving pieces” as the dishware and flatware used on the table, which include one platter, two serving bowls, two serving spoons, and one serving fork. Because DW–1–1992 includes flatware items in a place setting, DOE believes that the instructions in section 2.6.3 of appendix C to soil a certain number of place settings may be interpreted to conflict with the additional requirement that all flatware items remain unsoiled. Therefore, DOE proposes to amend section 2.7 of appendix C to specify the individual items in a place setting and identify the serving pieces, as well as to clarify in section 2.6.3 of appendix C that the flatware that is part of a soiled place setting is to remain unsoiled.
DOE notes that certain items specified for the test load in section 2.7 of appendix C may be obsolete and, thus, may not be obtained for use in the dishwasher test procedure. In particular, DOE believes that the cup and saucer, salad fork, serving fork and serving spoon are no longer available as currently specified. AHAM submitted information to DOE regarding alternative specifications for all flatware and serving pieces, which AHAM considers acceptable for use in its current dishwasher test method, DW–1–2009. AHAM provides specific pattern names and product numbers for each of the flatware and serving piece items. (AHAM, No. 24 at pp. 1–2) DOE believes that AHAM's specifications represent the most reasonable alternative for the obsolete test load flatware and serving pieces, and proposes in today's SNOPR to amend the test load specifications in section 2.7 of appendix C accordingly. DOE also seeks comment on alternative specifications for other test load items which may be obsolete, including the cup and saucer, and will consider additional amendments to the test load specifications in appendix C if it receives such information.
The current DOE dishwasher test procedure requires the use of half the quantity of detergent specified by DW–1–1992. Section 4.1 of ANSI/AHAM DW–1–1992 requires the use of 0.5-percent concentration by weight of Cascade powder national formula dishwasher detergent in the prewash and main wash cup. Thus, appendix C requires 0.25-percent detergent concentration by weight in the prewash and main wash cup, but it does not specify what water usage should be used as the basis for calculating the concentrations and how the actual detergent weights would be determined.
Therefore, DOE proposes to calculate the required detergent amounts by measuring the volume of water (in gallons) used during the prewash and the main wash portions of the cycle when running the preconditioning cycle as specified in appendix C. To ensure representative water volumes, DOE proposes requiring that the preconditioning cycle be run using the cycle setting for the active mode cycle. The amount of detergent in grams (g) required for the prewash would then be calculated as (volume of water used during the prewash portion) × (water density in pounds (lb)/gallon, which is a function of the nominal inlet water temperature) × (453.6 g/lb, the conversion factor from lb to g) × (0.0025, the conversion factor to obtain 0.25-percent mass concentration). The amount of detergent in grams required for the main wash would be calculated as (volume of water used during the main wash portion) × (water density in lb/gallon, which is a function of the inlet water temperature) × (453.6 g/lb, which is the conversion factor from lb to g) × (0.0025, the conversion factor to obtain 0.25-percent mass concentration).
DOE is also aware that the detergent specified in section 4.1 of ANSI/AHAM DW–1–1992, “Cascade powder national formula,” is not a currently-marketed formulation. Thus, DOE proposes amending the dishwasher test procedure to specify the use of “Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn” powder detergent, which it believes to be the most representative Cascade power national formulation available at this time on the market.
On July 22, 2011, DOE received a request for guidance from AHAM on interpreting the appropriate version of AHAM's dehumidifier test method, DH–1, “Dehumidifiers” (DH–1), to be used in the DOE dehumidifier test procedure found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X (appendix X). According to AHAM, it is ambiguous as to whether the appropriate version of DH–1 is the one that was in effect at the time that the current DOE test procedure was published (AHAM DH–1–1992 (DH–1–1992)) or the current version that was issued in 2008 (ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008 (DH–1–2008)). AHAM recommended that the DOE test procedure be interpreted to require the use of DH–1–2008 because it contains technical improvements and clarifications as compared to the earlier version. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1–2).
Currently, section 4 of appendix X requires that dehumidifier capacity and EF be evaluated by means of the ENERGY STAR qualification criteria that were in effect as of January 1, 2001. Those criteria (denoted as version 1.0) in turn require that capacity be measured according to DH–1, with no version specified, and EF be measured according to CAN/CSA–C749–1994 (R2005), “Performance of Dehumidifiers” (CAN/CSA–C749). DOE agrees that the required test method for capacity measurement could be interpreted as either the version of DH–1 that was in effect as of January 1, 2001 (DH–1–1992), or the version that is currently effective (DH–1–2008).
DOE, therefore, evaluated both the 1992 and 2008 editions of DH–1 to
DH–1–1992 requires thermometers measuring wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures to be accurate to 0.1 °F, with graduated intervals of no more than 0.2 °F. DH–1–2008 maintains those accuracies for analog temperature measurement devices, but requires a precision of 0.05 °F for digital equipment. DOE believes that many test labs are already using thermocouples and data acquisition systems, and thus achieving the more accurate temperature measurements. In any event, this requirement would maintain or improve the determination of ambient conditions, leading to maintaining or improving test repeatability and reproducibility.
DH–1–2008 allows the use of less accurate weight measurement equipment for measuring the amount of condensate that is collected during the test. This newer version requires a maximum of 0.5 percent variation among individual readings, rather than the 0.2 percent specified in DH–1–1992. Because this allowable variation directly translates to a 0.5-percent uncertainty in the capacity rating, the effect of this change would be to allow the capacity ratings to range from 15 ± .08 pints/day for the smallest unit in DOE's compliance certification database
DH–1–2008 adds a new requirement that the barometric pressure measuring instrument must be accurate to 0.3 percent. DOE is not aware of the type of pressure instruments that have been or are currently being used by test labs, so it is not known whether this new requirement would have any impact on nominal performance measurements. DOE believes in general, however, that providing such a specification would help ensure test repeatability and reproducibility by aiding in maintaining ambient conditions closely.
In DH–1–2008, AHAM increased the minimum distance between any room surface and the discharge side of the dehumidifier from 3 feet to 6 feet. This version of DH–1 also adds a requirement that the test room conditioning equipment handle air at a rate of not less than two times the dehumidifier air flow, and that the air flow approaching the dehumidifier be uniform in velocity. Further, DH–1–2008 newly specifies the orientation of the dehumidifier with respect to the air flow within the test room and the position of an air sampling tree in relation to the inlet face of the test unit. DOE interprets that the purpose of these new requirements is to ensure that testing conditions are as stable and uniform as possible, and does not believe that the different requirements would measurably affect the nominal performance of a test unit.
Measurements of the energy use, supply power, and wet- and dry-bulb temperatures are required to be recorded at 30-minute intervals in DH–1–1992. The intervals were shortened to 10 minutes in the 2008 version. This change would not cause a change in the nominal capacity measurement because the final condensate measurement would remain the same. The greater recording frequency helps to ensure that proper test conditions are maintained throughout the test. There is, however, an accompanying increase in test burden, as the new test procedure requires recording 36 events over the 6-hour test period instead of the original 12, but DOE concludes that the incremental burden is small if the data are recorded automatically in a data acquisition system, as is likely for many test labs.
In sum, upon review of the two versions of DH–1, DOE recognizes that there could be minor impacts to the nominal capacity measurement associated with the changes made from DH–1–1992 to DH–1–2008. However, DOE tentatively concludes that, on balance, the use of either version would produce comparable results for its dehumidifier test procedure. Further, DOE believes that the additional clarity and specificity provided by the 2008 version would improve test accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility.
DOE further proposes that the dehumidifier test procedure directly reference DH–1–2008 for both the capacity and EF measurements given that the EF methodology has been added to DH–1–2008. The proposed test method is based on the ENERGY STAR criteria (as required by EPCA) and CAN/CSA–C794–1994. DOE proposes the direct reference to DH–1–2008 given the improvements in that version as compared to the test method set forth in DH–1–1992 and referenced in the ENERGY STAR criteria. Therefore, DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to update the reference in its dehumidifier test procedure to DH–1–2008 for both capacity and EF measurements, and eliminate the reference to the ENERGY STAR qualification criteria.
In sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 of the current dishwasher test procedure, water energy consumption is calculated as specified for both non-soil-sensing and soil-sensing dishwashers using electrically heated water “[f]or the normal and truncated normal test cycle.” Because the normal and truncated normal test cycles do not apply to soil-sensing dishwashers, DOE proposes to remove this qualification in newly designated sections 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.2.1. Similarly, in sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the current dishwasher test procedure, water energy consumption is calculated as specified for both non-soil-sensing and soil-sensing dishwashers using gas-heated or oil-heater water “[f]or each test cycle.” Because for soil-sensing dishwashers the calculation is applied to a single weighted-average water consumption measured over the sensor heavy response, sensor medium response, and sensor light response cycles, DOE believes that this qualification may cause confusion. Therefore, DOE proposes to remove this qualification in newly designated sections 5.6.1.1 and 5.6.2.1. DOE also proposes to correct references to the water consumption values used in the calculation of water energy consumption in these sections of the dishwasher test procedure, so that separate references are provided for non-soil-sensing and soil-sensing dishwashers.
Due to a transcription error in publication, the September 2011 SNOPR erroneously specified in the regulatory text for the proposed dishwasher test procedure amendments the calculation of estimated annual operating cost for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle which operate at 50 °F inlet water temperature. Specifically, the calculation proposed in 10 CFR 430.23(c)(1)(i)(B) contained extraneous variables “B” and “V.” DOE proposes in today's SNOPR to remove these extraneous variables to correct the calculation.
The energy conservation standards for cooking products require that gas cooking products manufactured on or after April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. 10 CFR 430.32(j). Therefore, the provisions in the cooking products test procedure that measure the energy use of gas pilot lights shall be obsolete at the time any final test procedure amendments become effective. For this reason, DOE proposes to delete existing sections 2.9.2.2 (“Flow meter”), 3.1.1.2 (“Continuously burning pilot lights of a conventional gas oven”), 3.1.2.1 (“Continuously burning pilot lights of a conventional gas cooking top”), 3.2.1.3 (“Gas consumption of continuously burning pilot lights” [for conventional gas ovens]), 3.2.2.1 (“Gas consumption of continuously burning pilot lights” [for conventional gas cooking tops]), 3.3.7 (recording the gas flow rate or gas consumption and elapsed time for a continuously burning pilot light of a conventional gas oven), 3.3.10 (recording the gas flow rate or gas consumption and elapsed time for a continuously burning pilot light of a conventional gas cooking top), 4.1.2.2 (“Annual energy consumption of any continuously burning pilot lights” [for conventional gas ovens]), and 4.2.2.2.2 (“Annual energy consumption of any continuously burning gas pilots” [for conventional gas cooking tops]) in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix I. DOE also proposes to modify (and renumber where appropriate) existing sections 1.7 (“Normal nonoperating temperature”), 1.14 (“Symbol usage”), 2.9.2.1 (“Positive displacement meters”), 3.1.1 “Conventional oven”), 3.1.1.1 (“Self-cleaning operation of a conventional oven”), 3.1.2 (“Conventional cooking top”), 4.1.2.5.2 (“Conventional gas oven energy consumption”), 4.1.2.6.2 (“Conventional gas oven energy consumption” [for multiple conventional gas ovens”]), 4.2.1.2 (“Gas surface unit cooking efficiency”), and 4.2.2.2.3 (“Total annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top”) to eliminate the measures of energy use relating to gas pilot lights.
DOE also proposes to eliminate the calculation of energy factor for dishwashers in 10 CFR 430.23 because this metric is no longer used in DOE's energy conservation standards for dishwashers or to make representations of energy efficiency.
EPCA requires that “[a]ny test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use * * * or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use * * * and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)).
For the reasons stated in the December 2010 NOPR and September 2011 SNOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the amended test procedures would produce test results that measure the standby mode and off mode power consumption during representative use, and that the test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE continues to make these assertions for today's SNOPR, as explained below.
Regarding the proposal in today's SNOPR to measure energy use in fan-only mode, DOE recognizes that the current specifications for the watt-hour meter to be used for measuring energy consumption in the dishwasher active washing cycle and conventional cooking products cooking cycle may not be sufficient. Therefore, DOE is proposing more stringent specifications for these watt-hour meters. The watt-hour meter in the dishwasher and conventional cooking products test procedures would be required to have a resolution of 0.1 watt-hour or less and a maximum error of no more than 1 percent of the measured value for any demand greater than 5 watts. Today's proposal would allow the measurement of fan-only mode energy consumption as a continuation of the active mode cycle, rather than necessitating a separate cycle to be run to measure the energy use in fan-only mode using the more accurate watt-meter. The proposed approach would minimize test burden associated with the measurement of fan-only mode.
For the proposed amendments to incorporate the energy and water use associated with dishwasher water softener regeneration, manufacturers would need to run up to an additional ten cycles to ensure that a regeneration process is captured. DOE based this proposal on the information supplied by manufacturers that, on average, water-softening dishwashers regenerate approximately once every six cycles. To minimize test burden, particularly for soil-sensing dishwashers, DOE proposes that these cycles would be run with no test load, since DOE believes that a substantial part of the burden for the existing test procedure is incurred by the preparation and application of soils to the dishware. DOE welcomes comment on this approach, as well as the alternative approach to add constant values for this energy and water use, which could reduce the test burden on manufacturers. DOE also seeks comment on any other alternative methods to initiate, identify, and measure the water softener regeneration process.
The proposed clarifications for dishwasher test load and soiling specifications would not impact test burden because the test conduct would remain the same. The proposed clarification of the energy test cycle selection for certain soil-sensing dishwashers could change the test duration if the cycle time for the non-soil-sensing normal cycle and required soil-sensing cycles are different, but the time could be shorter or longer depending on the specific model. For the proposed detergent dosing clarifications, test burden may be reduced, as the amendments would provide clear instructions on the appropriate method by which to determine the dosing amounts. DOE welcomes comment on the impacts of these proposed clarifications.
As discussed in section III.E, today's proposal to reference AHAM DH–1–2008 in the dehumidifier test procedure would newly specify the precision of digital temperature measurement devices for measuring wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures and the accuracy of the barometric pressure measurement instrument. DOE estimates the retail cost of such equipment as approximately $500. The proposed dehumidifier amendments would also allow the use of less accurate weight measurement equipment, which imposes no burden on manufacturers. The proposed test room requirements, however, could require the use of a larger test chamber than is specified under the current test procedure, and could also require different air handling equipment. Many test laboratories may
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the December 2010 NOPR and September 2011 SNOPR remain unchanged for this SNOPR. These determinations are set forth in the December 2010 NOPR (75 FR 75290, 75317–19 (Dec. 2, 2010)) and the September 2011 SNOPR (76 FR 58346, 58355 (Sept. 20, 2011)). An update to the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification is set forth below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed today's supplemental proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE tentatively concluded that the December 2010 NOPR and September 2011 SNOPR would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and today's SNOPR contains no revisions to that proposal that would result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The updates to the factual basis for this certification are as follows:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS classification code 335228, titled “Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing,” is 500 employees; this classification specifically includes residential dishwasher manufacturers. Additionally, the threshold number for NAICS classification code 335221, titled “Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing,” is 750 employees; this classification specifically includes manufacturers of residential conventional cooking products. The threshold number for NAICS classification code 335211, titled “Electric Housewares and Household Fan Manufacturing,” is 750 employees; this classification specifically includes manufacturers of dehumidifiers.
Most of the manufacturers supplying residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers and/or conventional cooking products are large multinational corporations. DOE surveyed the AHAM member directory to identify manufacturers of residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products. DOE then consulted publicly-available data, purchased company reports from vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, and contacted manufacturers, where needed, to determine if they meet the SBA's definition of a “small business manufacturing facility” and have their manufacturing facilities located within the United States. Based on this analysis, DOE estimates that there are two small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking products, four small businesses that manufacture dehumidifiers, and no small businesses that manufacture dishwashers.
The proposed rule would amend DOE's test procedures for dishwashers, dehumidifiers and cooking products. Because DOE is unaware of any small businesses that manufacture dishwashers, there would be no impact on such manufacturers due to the proposed amendments to DOE's dishwasher test procedure. The proposed rule would amend DOE's test procedures for dehumidifiers and conventional cooking products by incorporating testing provisions to address standby mode and off mode energy use in these products, as well as cooking products fan-only mode energy consumption. The test procedure amendments involve measuring power input when the product is in standby mode or off mode, as well as fan-only mode for a conventional cooking product. These tests would be conducted in the same facilities used for the current energy testing of these products, so there would be no additional facilities costs required by the proposed rule. In addition, while the watt-hour meter required for these tests might require greater accuracy than the watt-hour meter used for current energy testing, the investment required for a possible instrumentation upgrade would likely be relatively modest. It is possible that the manufacturers, or their testing facilities, already have equipment that meets the proposed meter requirements, but an Internet search of equipment that specifically meets the proposed requirements reveals a cost of approximately $2,000. The amendments proposed in today's SNOPR would also update the industry test method for dehumidifiers. As discussed in section III.H, this update could impose on manufacturers a cost for new measurement equipment of approximately $500, as well as potentially increasing operator time by less than 1 hour over the course of a 24-hour test. These costs are small compared to the overall financial investment needed to undertake the business enterprise of testing consumer products which involves facilities, qualified staff, and specialized equipment. Based on its review of industry data,
DOE recognizes that the proposed updated reference to the industry dehumidifier test method could potentially require manufacturers to install a larger test chamber and different air handling equipment. However, DOE believes that manufacturers may already be using AHAM DH–1–2008 in certifying their products. DOE notes that one of the small businesses has products listed in AHAM's current dehumidifier certification database, indicating that those tests were conducted according to DH–1–2008. In addition, AHAM selected an independent test laboratory to conduct dehumidifier testing and verification using DH–1–2008. DOE believes that testing that this laboratory performs for manufacturers to determine compliance with energy conservation standards would be conducted in the same facility. Therefore, DOE tentatively
Furthermore, the duration of the fan-only mode testing for conventional ovens and conventional ranges is generally not expected to exceed the time required to conduct current energy testing. DOE's research indicates that the duration of fan-only mode for these products ranges from 10 minutes to 3.5 hours. DOE estimates that the total time currently required for conventional oven testing (or for testing the conventional oven portion of a range) to be approximately 4 hours for products which are not equipped with the capability for forced convection or self-cleaning, with an additional 3 hours required for testing forced convection and an additional 4 hours required for testing self-clean operation. DOE's research did not identify any conventional ovens or conventional ranges manufactured by either of the two small cooking products manufacturers that are equipped with either forced convection or self-clean capability. DOE estimates that fan-only mode testing in the absence of such features could increase testing time by 3–88 percent. However, DOE's research also suggests that none of the conventional ovens and conventional ranges manufactured by the two small cooking products businesses are capable of operation in fan-only mode, and therefore DOE believes it is unlikely that these manufacturers would be impacted by the proposed fan-only mode testing provisions.
For these reasons, DOE continues to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). DOE seeks comment on the updated certification set forth above.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this SNOPR no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. Email submissions are preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English, and are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although comments are welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties on the following issues:
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to measure energy use in fan-only mode. DOE also seeks comment on its analysis of fan-only mode for dishwashers and conventional cooking products. In particular, DOE welcomes input on its definition of fan-only mode, its determination of fan-only mode as an active mode, its proposed test procedure amendments to measure fan-only mode energy use for dishwashers and conventional ovens, and the inclusion of fan-only mode energy use in the efficiency metrics for these products. (See section III.A).
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to measure water softener regeneration energy and water consumption for residential dishwashers. DOE also requests data on the number of times per year on average that the water softening regeneration process occurs, the percentage of households with water-softening dishwashers that use home water softening systems, and the average per-cycle and annual water and energy use associated with water softener regeneration. DOE also welcomes input on the methodologies proposed in today's SNOPR to measure the water and energy use during regeneration, including the method of adding constant values for this water and energy use, and what those constant values should be. (
DOE invites comment on the proposed use of the alternative methodology for allocation of annual hours for each product. (
DOE invites comment on the approach to ensure the turbidity sensor in soil-sensing dishwashers remains calibrated; the method to select the energy test cycle to be used for soil-sensing dishwasher testing; the clarified definition of normal cycle; the specifications for the test load, including alternatives for obsolete items including flatware, serving pieces, and possibly other items such as the cup and saucer; the method and calculations for preconditioning and determining the quantity of detergent to be added to the prewash and main wash portions of the test cycle; and the proposed detergent formulation. (
DOE seeks comment on the proposed incorporation by reference of ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008 for the measurement of capacity and energy factor, and the calculation of integrated energy factor in DOE's dehumidifier test procedure. (
DOE welcomes comment on its proposal to remove the provisions in the cooking products test procedure that measure gas pilot light energy consumption. (
DOE seeks comment on its analysis of the test burden associated with dishwasher and conventional cooking products fan-only mode testing and dishwasher water softener regeneration testing as proposed in today's SNOPR, as well as its proposals related to the power supply and preconditioning requirements, the energy test cycle for dishwashers with a soil-sensing cycle selection separate from a non-soil-sensing normal cycle, the test load and soiling requirements, and the detergent dosage for dishwashers. DOE also seeks comment on the burden associated with updating the industry test method for dehumidifiers. (
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion and certification that the December 2010 NOPR, as modified by the September 2011 SNOPR and today's SNOPR, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Incorporated by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Section 429.23 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the energy factor, integrated energy factor, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
3. Section 429.36 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the energy factor, integrated energy factor, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
2. Section 430.3 is amended:
a. By redesignating paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) as (h)(2) through (h)(6);
b. By adding paragraph (h)(1); and
c. By revising paragraph (m)(2).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(h) * * *
(1) ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008 (“DH–1–2008”),
(m) * * *
(2) IEC Standard 62301 (“IEC 62301”),
3. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (i), and (z) to read as follows:
(c)
(i) When cold water (50 °F) is used,
(A) For dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle as defined in section 1.23 of appendix C to this subpart, EAOC = (D
(B) For dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle as defined in section 1.23 of appendix C to this subpart, EAOC = (D
(C) For dishwashers not having a truncated normal cycle, EAOC = (D
(D) For dishwashers not having a truncated normal cycle, EAOC = (D
(E) Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
(ii) When electrically-heated water (120 °F or 140 °F) is used,
(A) For dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle as defined in section 1.23 of appendix C to this subpart, EAOC = (D
(B) For dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle as defined in section 1.23 of appendix C to this subpart, EAOC = (D
(C) For dishwashers not having a truncated normal cycle, EAOC = (D
(D) For dishwashers not having a truncated normal cycle, EAOC = (D
(E) Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(C) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
(iii) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used,
(A) For dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle as defined in section 1.23 of appendix C to this subpart,
EAOC
(B) For dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle as defined in section 1.23 of appendix C to this subpart, EAOC
(C) For dishwashers not having a truncated normal cycle, EAOC
(D) For dishwashers not having a truncated normal cycle, EAOC
(E) Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. Manufacturers calculating EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) of this section should calculate EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
(2) The estimated annual energy use, EAEU, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year must be rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year and is defined as follows:
(i) For dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle as defined in section 1.23 of appendix C to this subpart,
(A) EAEU = (M−(E
(i) Before (
(ii) Before the compliance date of any amended standards to demonstrate compliance.
(B) EAEU = (M+M
(i) On or after (
(ii) On or after the compliance date of any amended standards to demonstrate compliance.
(C) Manufacturers calculating EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section should calculate EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(ii)A, or (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, as appropriate. Manufacturers calculating EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section should calculate EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(1)(ii)(B), or (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(ii) For dishwashers not having a truncated normal cycle:
(A) EAEU = (M+W)×N+S may be used for units manufactured:
(i) Before (
(ii) Before the compliance date of any amended standards to demonstrate compliance.
(B) EAEU = (M+M
(i) On or after (
(ii) On or after the compliance date of any amended standards to demonstrate compliance.
(C) Manufacturers calculating EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section should calculate EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C), (c)(1)(ii)(C), or (c)(1)(iii)(C) of this section, as appropriate. Manufacturers calculating EAEU pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section should calculate EAOC pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D), (c)(1)(ii)(D), or (c)(1)(iii)(D) of this section, as appropriate.
(3) The water consumption, V, and the sum of the water consumption, V, and the water consumption during water softener regeneration, V
(i) Water consumption, V, may be measured for units manufactured:
(A) Before (
(B) Before the compliance date of any amended standards to demonstrate compliance.
(ii) Manufacturers calculating water consumption pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section should calculate EAOC as described in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(i)(C), (c)(1)(ii)(A), (c)(1)(ii)(C), (c)(1)(iii)(A), or (c)(1)(iii)(C) of this section, as appropriate. Manufacturers calculating water consumption pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section should calculate EAUE as described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) or (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, as appropriate.
(iii) The sum of the water consumption, V, and the water consumption during water softener regeneration, V
(A) On or after (
(B) On or after the compliance date of any amended standards to demonstrate compliance.
(C) Manufacturers calculating water consumption pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section should calculate EAOC as described in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(1)(i)(D), (c)(1)(ii)(B), (c)(1)(ii)(D), (c)(1)(iii)(B), or (c)(1)(iii)(D) of this section, as appropriate. Manufacturers calculating water consumption pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section should calculate EAUE as described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) or (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(4) Other useful measures of energy consumption for dishwashers are those which the Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making
(i)
(i) The total integrated annual electrical energy consumption for any electrical energy usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWhs) per year, times the representative average unit cost for electricity, in dollars per kWh, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act; plus
(ii) The total annual gas energy consumption for any natural gas usage, in British thermal units (Btus) per year, times the representative average unit cost for natural gas, in dollars per Btu, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act; plus
(iii) The total annual gas energy consumption for any propane usage, in Btus per year, times the representative average unit cost for propane, in dollars per Btu, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act. The total annual energy consumption for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, and conventional ovens shall be as determined according to sections 4.3, 4.2.2, and 4.1.2, respectively, of appendix I to this subpart. For conventional gas cooking tops, total integrated annual electrical energy consumption shall be equal to E
(2) The cooking efficiency for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens shall be the ratio of the cooking energy output for the test to the cooking energy input for the test, as determined according to sections 4.2.1 and 4.1.3, respectively, of appendix I to this subpart. The final cooking efficiency values shall be rounded off to three significant digits.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The energy factor for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, and conventional ovens shall be the ratio of the annual useful cooking energy output to the total annual energy input, as determined according to sections 4.3, 4.2.3.1, and 4.1.4.1, respectively, of appendix I to this subpart. The final energy factor values shall be rounded off to three significant digits.
(5) The integrated energy factor for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, and conventional ovens shall be the ratio of the annual useful cooking energy output to the total integrated annual energy input, as determined according to sections 4.3, 4.2.3.2, and 4.1.4.2, respectively, of appendix I to this subpart. The final integrated energy factor values shall be rounded off to three significant digits.
(6) There shall be two estimated annual operating costs, two cooking efficiencies, and two energy factors for convertible cooking appliances—
(i) An estimated annual operating cost, a cooking efficiency, and an energy factor which represent values for those three measures of energy consumption for the operation of the appliance with natural gas; and
(ii) An estimated annual operating cost, a cooking efficiency, and an energy factor which represent values for those three measures of energy consumption for the operation of the appliance with LP-gas.
(7) There shall be two integrated energy factors for convertible cooking appliances—
(i) An integrated energy factor which represents the value for this measure of energy consumption for the operation of the appliance with natural gas; and
(ii) An integrated energy factor which represents the value for this measure of energy consumption for the operation of the appliance with LP-gas.
(8) The estimated annual operating cost for convertible cooking appliances which represents natural gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(1) of this section using the total annual gas energy consumption for natural gas times the representative average unit cost for natural gas.
(9) The estimated annual operating cost for convertible cooking appliances which represents LP-gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(1) of this section using the representative average unit cost for propane times the total annual energy consumption of the test gas, either propane or natural gas.
(10) The cooking efficiency for convertible cooking appliances which represents natural gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(2) of this section when the appliance is tested with natural gas.
(11) The cooking efficiency for convertible cooking appliances which represents LP-gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(2) of this section, when the appliance is tested with either natural gas or propane.
(12) The energy factor for convertible cooking appliances which represents natural gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(4) of this section when the appliance is tested with natural gas.
(13) The integrated energy factor for convertible cooking appliances which represents natural gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(5) of this section when the appliance is tested with natural gas.
(14) The energy factor for convertible cooking appliances which represents LP-gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(4) of this section when the appliance is tested with either natural gas or propane.
(15) The integrated energy factor for convertible cooking appliances which represents LP-gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(7)(ii) of this section, shall be determined according to paragraph (i)(5) of this section when the appliance is tested with natural gas or propane.
(16) Other useful measures of energy consumption for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, and conventional ovens shall be those measures of energy consumption which the Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and which are derived from the application of appendix I to this subpart.
(z)
(2) The integrated energy factor for dehumidifiers, expressed in L/kWh, shall be determined according to paragraph 5.2 of appendix X to this subpart.
4. Appendix C to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
a. By revising the introductory text after the appendix heading;
b. By revising section 1, Definitions;
c. By revising section 2, Testing Conditions;
d. In section 3. Instrumentation, by:
1. Revising section 3.5; and
2. Adding new section 3.8;
e. By revising section 4, Test Cycle and Measurements: and
f. By revising section 5, Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
The procedures and calculations that refer to the combined low-power mode, fan-only mode, and water softener energy consumption (
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.6
2.6.1
2.6.1.1 If the unit is a water-softening dishwasher, it must be tested first on the normal cycle without a test load for water softener regeneration, as specified in section 4.1 of this appendix. The water softener setting shall be selected according to manufacturer instructions for a water hardness of 217 mg/L (217 ppm or 12.6 grains per gallon). Ensure that dishwasher salt is supplied to the water softener system according to the manufacturer's instructions.
2.6.1.2 All non-soil-sensing dishwashers to be tested according to section 4.2 of this appendix at a nominal inlet temperature of 140 °F must then be tested on the normal cycle and truncated normal cycle without a test load if the dishwasher does not heat water in the normal cycle. Water-softening dishwashers shall be tested using the lowest water hardness water softener setting.
2.6.2
2.6.2.1 If the unit is a water-softening dishwasher, it must be tested first without a test load on the normal cycle for water softener regeneration, as specified in section 4.1 of this appendix. The water softener setting shall be selected according to manufacturer instructions for a water hardness of 217 mg/L (217 ppm or 12.6 grains per gallon). Ensure that dishwasher salt is supplied to the water softener system according to the manufacturer's instructions.
2.6.2.2 All non-soil-sensing dishwashers to be tested at a nominal inlet temperature of 50 °F or 120 °F must then be tested according to section 4.2 of this appendix on the normal cycle with a clean load of eight place settings plus six serving pieces, as specified in section 2.7 of this appendix. If the capacity of the dishwasher, as stated by the manufacturer, is less than eight place settings, then the test load must be the stated capacity. Water-softening dishwashers shall be tested using the lowest water hardness water softener setting.
2.6.3
2.6.3.1 Water-softening dishwashers must be tested first without a test load on the normal cycle for water softener regeneration, as specified in section 4.1 of this appendix. The water softener setting shall be selected according to manufacturer instructions for a water hardness of 217 mg/L (217 ppm or 12.6 grains per gallon). Ensure that dishwasher salt is supplied to the water softener system according to the manufacturer's instructions.
2.6.3.2 All soil-sensing dishwashers shall then be tested according to section 4.2 of this appendix. If soil-sensing is available as an option in the normal cycle, the normal cycle shall be selected, with the soil-sensing option if necessary. If soil-sensing is not available for the normal cycle, the cycle type that uses the soil-sensing system, and contains all the elements of a normal cycle including the power-dry feature (if such a feature is provided) shall be selected. The dishwasher shall be tested first for the sensor heavy response, then tested for the sensor medium response, and finally for the sensor light response with the following combinations of soiled and clean test loads. Water-softening dishwashers shall be tested using the lowest water hardness water softener setting.
2.6.3.2.1 For tests of the sensor heavy response, as defined in section 1.16 of this appendix:
(A) For standard dishwashers, the test unit is to be loaded with a total of eight place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in section 2.7 of this appendix. Four of the eight place settings, except for the flatware, must be soiled according to ANSI/AHAM DW–1 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) while the remaining place settings, serving pieces, and all flatware are not soiled.
(B) For compact dishwashers, the test unit is to be loaded with four place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in section 2.7 of this appendix. Two of the four place settings, except for the flatware, must be soiled according to ANSI/AHAM DW–1 while the remaining place settings, serving pieces, and all flatware are not soiled.
2.6.3.2.2 For tests of the sensor medium response, as defined in section 1.18 of this appendix:
(A) For standard dishwashers, the test unit is to be loaded with a total of eight place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in section 2.7 of this appendix. Two of the eight place settings, except for the flatware must be soiled according to ANSI/AHAM DW–1 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) while the remaining place settings, serving pieces, and all flatware are not soiled.
(B) For compact dishwashers, the test unit is to be loaded with four place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in section 2.7 of this appendix. One of the four place settings, except for the flatware, must be soiled according to ANSI/AHAM DW–1 while the remaining place settings, serving pieces, and all flatware are not soiled.
2.6.3.2.3 For tests of the sensor light response, as defined in section 1.17 of this appendix:
(A) For standard dishwashers, the test unit is to be loaded with a total of eight place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in section 2.7 of this appendix. One of the eight place settings, except for the flatware, must be soiled with half of the soil load specified for a single place setting according to ANSI/AHAM DW–1 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) while the remaining place settings, serving pieces, and all flatware are not soiled.
(B) For compact dishwashers, the test unit is to be loaded with four place settings plus six serving pieces as specified in section 2.7 of this appendix. One of the four place settings, except for the flatware, must be soiled with half of the soil load specified for a single place setting according to the ANSI/AHAM DW–1 while the remaining place settings, serving pieces, and all flatware are not soiled.
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.10.1
2.10.2
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.1.1 Measure the water consumption, V
4.1.2 Repeat the cycle as specified in section 4.1.1 of this appendix. If:
Then V
Otherwise, repeat the cycle as specified in section 4.1.1 of this appendix until:
Otherwise, if a maximum total of 10 cycles have been conducted and no cycle is determined to have water consumption that is 10 percent higher than the average water consumption of the other cycles, then the unit shall be deemed not a water-softening dishwasher.
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3
4.4
4.4.1 If the dishwasher has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1.10 of this appendix, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the dishwasher, P
4.4.2 If the dishwasher has an off mode, as defined in section 1.11 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power, P
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
If the dishwasher is not capable of operation in fan-only mode, E
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.1.1 Calculate the water energy consumption, W, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:
W = V × T × K
Where,
V = water consumption in gallons per cycle, as determined in section 5.4.1 of this appendix for non-soil-sensing dishwashers and section 5.4.2 of this appendix for soil-sensing dishwashers,
T = nominal water heater temperature rise = 90 °F, and
K = specific heat of water in kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree Fahrenheit = 0.0024.
5.5.1.2 For water-softening dishwashers, calculate the water softener regeneration water energy consumption, W
W
5.5.2
5.5.2.1 kilowatt-hours per cycle and defined as:
W = V × T × K
V = water consumption in gallons per cycle, as determined in section 5.4.1 of this appendix for non-soil-sensing dishwashers and section 5.4.2 of this appendix for soil-sensing dishwashers,
T = nominal water heater temperature rise = 70 °F, and
K = specific heat of water in kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree Fahrenheit = 0.0024,
5.5.2.2 For water-softening dishwashers, calculate the water softener regeneration water energy consumption, W
W
5.6
5.6.1
5.6.1.1 Calculate the water energy consumption using gas-heated or oil-heated water, W
5.6.1.2 For water-softening dishwashers, calculate the water softener regeneration water energy consumption, W
5.6.2
5.6.2.1 Calculate the water energy consumption using gas-heated or oil-heated water, W
5.6.2.2 For water-softening dishwashers, calculate the water softener regeneration water energy consumption, W
5.7
Then calculate the estimated annual simplified standby power use, S, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year and defined as:
5.8
5. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
a. By revising the Note after the appendix heading;
b. By revising section 1. Definitions;
c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by:
1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.1.2, 2.5.2, 2.6, 2.9.1.1, 2.9.1.3, and 2.9.2.1;
2. Removing section 2.9.2.2;
d. By revising section 3. Test Methods and Measurements: And
e. By revising section 4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements
The additions and revisions read as follows:
The procedures and calculations in this Appendix I need not be performed to determine compliance with energy conservation standards for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens at this time. However, any representation related to standby mode and off mode energy consumption of conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, and conventional ovens made after (
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2.1.2
2.5.2
2.6
2.9.1.1
2.9.1.3
2.9.2
2.9.2.1
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.1.1
3.1.1.2
3.1.1.2.1 If the conventional oven has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1.11 of this appendix, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the conventional oven, P
3.1.1.2.2 If the conventional oven has an off mode, as defined in section 1.13 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power of the conventional oven, P
3.1.2
3.1.2.1
3.1.2.1.1 If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1.11 of this appendix, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the conventional cooking top, P
3.1.2.1.2 If the conventional cooking top has an off mode, as defined in section 1.13 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power of the conventional cooking top, P
3.1.3
3.1.3.1 If the conventional range has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1.11 of this appendix, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the conventional range, P
3.1.3.2 If the conventional range has an off mode, as defined in section 1.13 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power of the conventional range, P
3.1.4
3.1.4.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.1.1
3.2.1.2
3.2.1.3
3.2.1.4
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.3.1 Record the test room temperature, T
3.3.2 Record measured test block weights W
3.3.3 Record the initial temperature, T
3.3.4 For a conventional oven with a thermostat which operates by cycling on and off, record the conventional oven test measurements T
3.3.5 For a conventional oven that can be operated with or without forced convection and the oven thermostat controls the oven temperature without cycling on and off, measure the energy consumed with the forced convection mode, (E
3.3.6 Record the measured energy consumption, E
3.3.7 For conventional ovens, record the conventional oven standby mode and off mode test measurements P
3.3.8 For the surface unit under test, record the electric energy consumption, E
3.3.9 Record the heating value, Hn, as determined in section 2.2.2.2 of this appendix for the natural gas supply.
3.3.10 Record the heating value, Hp, as determined in section 2.2.2.3 of this appendix for the propane supply.
3.3.11 Record the average standby mode power, P
4.1
4.1.1
for electric ovens, and,
for gas ovens,
4.1.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.2.1
4.1.2.1.1
4.1.2.2
4.1.2.2.1
4.1.2.3
4.1.2.4
4.1.2.4.1
4.1.2.4.2
4.1.2.5
4.1.2.5.1
4.1.2.5.2
4.1.2.5.3
4.1.3
4.1.3.1
For electric ovens:
For gas ovens:
4.1.3.2
4.1.4
4.1.4.1
For electric ovens,
For gas ovens:
4.1.4.2
For electric ovens,
For gas ovens:
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.1.1
4.2.1.2
4.2.1.3
4.2.2
4.2.2.1
4.2.2.1.1
4.2.2.1.2
4.2.2.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.3.1
For an electric cooking top, the energy factor is the same as the cooking efficiency as determined according to section 4.2.1.3 of this appendix.
For gas cooking tops,
4.2.3.2
For electric cooking tops,
For gas cooking tops,
4.3
The annual energy consumption for other combinations of ovens and cooktops will also be treated as the sum of the annual energy consumption of each of its components. The energy factor of a combined component is the sum of the annual useful cooking energy output of each component divided by the sum of the total annual energy consumption of each component. The integrated energy factor of other combinations of ovens and cooktops is the sum of the annual useful cooking energy output of each component divided by the sum of the total integrated annual energy consumption of each component.
6. Appendix X to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:
The procedures and calculations that refer to standby mode and off mode energy consumption (
This appendix covers the test requirements used to measure the energy performance of dehumidifiers.
a. ANSI/AHAM DH–1 means the test standard published by the American National Standards Institute and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, titled “Dehumidifiers,” ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008, (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
(1) Has cycled off its main function by humidistat or humidity sensor;
(2) Does not have its fan or blower operating; and
(3) Will reactivate the main function according to the humidistat or humidity sensor signal.
i.
j.
(1) To facilitate the activation of other modes (including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(2) Continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (
3.1
(i) A fractional number at or above the midpoint between two consecutive decimal places shall be rounded up to the higher of the two decimal places; or
(ii) A fractional number below the midpoint between two consecutive decimal places shall be rounded down to the lower of the two decimal places.
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
4.1
4.2
4.2.1 If the dehumidifier has an inactive mode, as defined in section 2(f) of this appendix, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the dehumidifier, P
4.2.2 If the dehumidifier has an off-cycle mode, as defined in section 2(h) of this appendix, measure and record the average off-cycle mode power of the dehumidifier, P
4.2.3 If the dehumidifier has a bucket full/removed mode, as defined in section 2(c) of this appendix, measure and record the average bucket full/removed mode power of the dehumidifier, P
4.2.4 If the dehumidifier has an off mode, as defined in section 2(g) of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power, P
5.1
5.2