Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Science and Technology Policy Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Transportation Security Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Public Debt Bureau
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G–1159, G–1159A, and G–1159B airplanes. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, a measurement to determine the clearance (gap) of the exposed rounded portion of the doubler and clothespin fitting at the wing-to-fuselage attachment, and repair if necessary. This AD also requires, for certain other airplanes, determining if a certain aircraft service change has been incorporated, and for affected airplanes, a measurement to determine the clearance (gap) of the exposed rounded portion of the doubler and clothespin fitting at the wing-to-fuselage attachment, and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of an improper structural modification that had excessive gaps in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct excessive gaps in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity at the wing-to-fuselage attachment and consequent separation of the wing from the airplane.
This AD is effective May 29, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 29, 2012.
We must receive comments on this AD by July 13, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402–2206; telephone 800–810–4853; fax 912–965–3520; email p
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Michael Cann, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474–5548; fax (404) 474–5606; email:
We received a report of an improper structural modification that resulted in excessive gaps in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings on a number of airplanes. The modification specified in Gulfstream Model G–1159A (also known as (aka) G–III) and G–1159B (aka G–IIB) Aircraft Service Change (ASC) 229 and G–1159 (aka G–II) ASC 426 installs a new three-piece box fitting on the left and right side wing-to-fuselage installations, including new part number 1159SB30175–11/–12 doublers.
During a routine corrosion inspection on a Model G–1159A (G–III) airplane, it was observed that the aft wing-to-fuselage attach fitting had an assembly gap exceeding the gap allowed by type design. This condition results in a transfer of wing loads through a different load path resulting in negative margins of safety in the upper bolt and lower bolt in bearing.
A records review revealed that this condition was the result of an improper structural modification. This records search also revealed that six other Model G–1159 (G–II) and G–1159A (G–III) airplanes incorporated the modification. All seven airplanes have been inspected, and four airplanes were found not to be in conformity with the type design, two are in conformity to the type design, and no data are available on the other. A further search has revealed that a similar nonconforming condition was found on a total of six airplanes. Of those, one airplane does not conform to type design, and no further information is available for the other five airplanes. Based on this information, it is possible that other Model G–1159 (G–II), G–1159B (G–IIB), and G–1159A (G–III) airplanes could potentially exhibit the same condition.
The excessive clearance between the structural members results in a change in load path and reduced structural strength of the assembly below certified limits. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity at the wing-to-fuselage attachment and consequent separation of the wing from the airplane.
We reviewed Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 21, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); and Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 36, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes). This service information describes procedures for a measurement to determine the clearance (gap) of the exposed rounded portion of the doubler and clothespin fitting at the wing-to-fuselage attachment, and contacting Gulfstream if necessary.
We have also reviewed Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 22, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); and Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 37, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes). This service information describes procedures for determining if a certain airplane service change has been incorporated, and, for affected airplanes, a measurement to determine the clearance (gap) of the exposed rounded portion of the doubler and clothespin fitting at the wing-to-fuselage attachment, and contacting Gulfstream if necessary.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.” The AD also requires sending the measurement results to Gulfstream.
Although the service information specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this AD requires operators to repair those conditions in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification intended to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the discovery of an improper structural modification that had excessive gaps in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct excessive gaps in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity at the wing-to-fuselage attachment. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 223 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary measurements and repairs that would be required based on the results of the measurement. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII,
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 May 29, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G–1159, G–1159A, and G–1159B airplanes; certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings; and 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of an improper structural modification that had excessive gaps in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct excessive gaps in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity at the wing-to-fuselage attachment and consequent separation of the wing from the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, measure to determine the clearance (gap) of the exposed rounded portion of the doubler and clothespin fitting at the wing-to-fuselage attachment, in accordance with Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 21, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); or Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 36, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes). If the clearance exceeds the limit specified in Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 21, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); or Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 36, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes); before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) Model G–1159, and G–1159B airplanes, having serial numbers (S/N) 083, 084, 096, 130, 176, 202, 238, 239, and 240.
(2) Model G–1159A airplanes, having S/N 346, 355, 385, and 486.
For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 10 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a review of airplane maintenance records to determine if the aircraft service change specified in Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 22, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); or Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 37, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes); has been incorporated.
(1) For airplanes on which the aircraft service change specified in Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 22, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); or Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 37, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes); has not been incorporated: No more work is required by this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which the aircraft service change specified in Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 22, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); or Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 37, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes); has been incorporated: Within 10 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, measure to determine the clearance (gap) of the exposed rounded portion of the doubler and clothespin fitting at the wing-to-fuselage attachment, in accordance with Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 22, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); or Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 37, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes). If the clearance exceeds the limit specified in Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 22, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159A airplanes); or Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 37, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012 (for Model G–1159 and G–1159B airplanes); before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta, ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.
Submit a report of the findings of any measurement required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD to Gulfstream, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, using the Service Reply Card of the applicable customer bulletin specified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD. The report must include the measurement results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.
(1) If the measurement was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the measurement.
(2) If the measurement was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the effective date of this AD.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Michael Cann, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474–5548; fax (404) 474–5606; email:
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(2) 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) Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 21, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012.
(ii) Gulfstream III Alert Customer Bulletin 22, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012.
(iii) Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 36, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012.
(iv) Gulfstream II/IIB Alert Customer Bulletin 37, including Service Reply Card, dated May 18, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402–2206; telephone 800–810–4853; fax 912–965–3520; email
(4) 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.
(5) 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:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior.
Final rule; approval of amendment.
We are approving an amendment to the Virginia regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The amendment revises the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations pertaining to ownership and control, valid existing rights, self-bonding, and availability of records. Virginia intends to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and SMCRA and is responding, in part, to a 30 CFR part 732 letter.
Effective May 29, 2012.
Mr. Earl Bandy, Director, Knoxville Field Office, Telephone: (865) 545–4103. Internet:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “* * * a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Virginia program on December 15, 1981. You can find background information on the Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Virginia program in the December 15, 1981,
By letter dated June 11, 2008, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (Virginia) sent us an informal proposed amendment to its program for a pre-submission review (VA–126–INF). We reviewed the pre-submission and responded to Virginia, with comments, via electronic mail on July 2, 2008. By letter dated July 17, 2008, Virginia formally submitted the proposed amendments to its program (Administrative Record No. VA–1089).
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the August 29, 2008,
OSM's review of the July 17, 2008, submittal identified several issues that we presented to Virginia. The first discussion occurred by telephone on September 4, 2008. As a result of that discussion, Virginia submitted on the same date, via electronic mail, Memorandum #13–86 which specifies application processing time limits for new permits and revision applications (Administrative Record No. VA–1093).
On March 25, 2011, OSM sent a letter (Administrative Record No. VA–2007) to Virginia informing them that their provisions at 4 VAC25–130–761.16(d)(1)(vii) and 4VAC25–130–761.16(d)(3), were inconsistent with the Federal counterparts. The language proposed by Virginia would have required that an applicant provide reasons for requesting an initial 30 day extension to the comment period.
The federal counterpart provisions, at 30 CFR 761.16(d)(1)(vii) and 761.16(d)(3), are clear that the initial 30-day extension will be granted, without cause, upon request.
Subsequent to several extensions (Administrative Record numbers VA–2008, VA–2009, VA–2010), Virginia submitted, by electronic mail, on June 13, 2011 (Administrative Record No. VA–2012), revised language that is substantially identical to the corresponding federal counterparts.
The following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern non-substantive wording or editorial changes.
Virginia proposed minor wording changes to the following previously-approved rules:
Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make Virginia's regulations less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations and can be approved.
Because the proposed rules contain language that is substantively identical to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they are no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations and can be approved.
1. At 4VAC25–130–773.15—Review of Permit Applications:
(a) At subsection (a)(1) Virginia proposes to require that the Division review the application for a permit, revision, or renewal; written comments and objections; information from AVS; and records of any informal conference or hearing held on the application—and issue a written decision, within a reasonable time, either granting, requiring modification of, or denying the application. If an informal conference is held, the decision will be made within 60 days of the close of the conference.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.7(a) require that the regulatory authority must specify a reasonable time (set by the regulatory authority) for decisions in those cases where no informal conference has been requested. Virginia's Memorandum to Operators #13–86 (Administrative Record No. VA–1093) provides time limits for permit and revision applications, but does not specifically address renewal applications.
By electronic mail on November 20, 2008 (Administrative Record No. VA–2003), Virginia clarified its permit renewal review process. It stated in part, “A permit renewal is different than a new permit or revision application, in that there is a set date in which it must be submitted to the Division * * * at least 120 days before the existing permit's expiration date. Failure to do so would subject the operation to cessation of mining operations on the expiration date if a renewal application was not timely submitted and the permittee was not acting diligently and in good faith with regard to the permit application. For timely submitted applications, the Division's decision on the renewal application is, for the most part, rendered by the existing permit's expiration date.”
In effect, Virginia must render a decision on a permit renewal application by the expiration date of the existing permit. Virginia requires that a renewal application be submitted 120 days prior to the expiration of the existing permit to accommodate the required filing and public notice procedures. Therefore, the time period for decisions is the aforementioned 120-day application timeframe. For these reasons, we find that the proposed revisions are no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.7(a) and can be approved.
(b) At subsection (b)(4)(i)(C), Virginia proposes to revise its violation review procedures to delete the remining exclusion for those permits, or renewals, issued before September, 2004. We find that these revisions are no less stringent than the provisions of section 510(e) of SMCRA, as modified by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which address permit approval or denial and therefore can be approved.
2. At 4VAC25–130–773.21—Improvidently Issued Permits; Rescission, Virginia proposes to make the requirements of this section applicable to permit suspensions, as well as permit rescissions. Virginia is also requiring that the notice of permit suspension or rescission be posted at its offices and on its internet home page. It also provides the procedures for the challenge and review of a person's ownership and control listing. Additionally, if a permittee files for an administrative review of the notice or decision pertaining to ownership and control, Virginia is requiring that the notice of public hearing be posted at the division office located nearest to the permit.
We find that the proposed revisions are no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.23(a)–(d), which address the administrative review and notification requirements for the suspension or rescission of improvidently issued permits, and can be approved.
3. At 4VAC25–130–840.14(c)(2)—Availability of Records, Virginia proposes to post a notice that specifies how and where it will maintain records pertaining to records, reports, inspection materials, permit applications, and other information for public inspection and copying. The notice will be sent to Circuit Court Clerks of coal-producing counties and will be posted at all Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation offices. Virginia will maintain the records at its principal office and the information will also be made available, upon request, at its field office as well as any Federal, State, or local government office(s) located in the county where the mining is, or may be proposed to occur.
Virginia is complying with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 840.14(b) and (c) that require that all pertinent permit information be made available for public inspection by either maintaining said information at Federal, State, or local government offices in the county where mining is occurring or proposed to occur, or mailing or electronically mailing said information to a requestor based on a description maintained at the locations named above. We find that the proposed revisions are no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 840.14(b) and (c) and therefore can be approved.
1. At 4 VAC 25–130–700.5—Definitions, Virginia proposes to delete the term and definition of
2. At 4 VAC25–130–773.15(a)(3)–(4)—Review of Permit Applications, Virginia proposes to require its review of information regarding the permit applicant's and/or operator's permit
3. At 4 VAC25–130–774.12(b), (c)—Post-Permit Issuance Requirements, Virginia proposes to specify the permittee's required actions in the event: (1) Said permittee fails to comply with the remedial measures of an enforcement action, or (2) the identification of interests information in the permit application changes. While there is no direct Federal counterpart to the proposed revisions, we find that the revisions are consistent with the general Federal provisions pertaining to post-permit issuance at 30 CFR 774.11 and therefore can be approved.
4. At 4 VAC25–130–778.13(e), (f), (g)—Identification of Interests:
(a) At subsection (e), Virginia proposes to require that a permit application include a list of all names under which the applicants
(b) At subsection (f), Virginia proposes to require that a permit application include a list of any pending permit applications with identifying information for the applicant and operator (if different from the applicant).
(c) At subsection (g), Virginia proposes to require that a permit application include certain identifying information for the permittee and operator. This includes name, address, tax identification numbers, permits numbers, and ownership relationship.
While there are no direct Federal counterparts to the proposed revisions, we find that the revisions are consistent with the general Federal provisions pertaining to permit application review at 30 CFR 778.11 and therefore can be approved.
5. At 4 VAC 25–130–800.52—Bond Forfeiture Reinstatement Procedures:
(a) Subsection (a), Virginia proposes to delete the reference to the Board of Conservation and Economic Development, as the entity no longer exists.
(b) Subsection (a)(5), Virginia proposes to replace the term
There are no Federal counterpart regulations. We find that the revisions are not inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA and the Federal regulations and can be approved.
6. At 4 VAC 25–130–801.12(d)—Entrance Fee and Bond, Virginia proposes to require the annual certification of the financial solvency of a permittee during the term of the permit. There is no Federal counterpart regulation. We find that the revision is not inconsistent with the requirements of SMCRA and the Federal regulations and can be approved.
7. At 4 VAC 25–130–801.13—Self-Bonding:
(a) Subsection (a), Virginia proposes to allow self-bonds from applicants of proposed surface coal mining operations in the form of an indemnity agreement. Virginia also proposes to change “paragraph” to “subdivision” in subsections (a)(3), (a)(7), and (b).
(b) Subsection (a)(1)(iv), Virginia proposes to require that an applicant of a proposed surface coal mining operation provide evidence indicating a history of satisfactory continuous operation.
(c) Subsection (a)(3), Virginia proposes to require that an applicant of a proposed surface mining operation or associated facility submit evidence substantiating the applicant's financial solvency, with appropriate financial documentation.
(d) Virginia proposes to replace
(e) Virginia proposes to delete existing subsection (b) pertaining to self-bonding provisions for surface coal mining operations. The surface coal mining permit requirements for self-bonding are addressed in subsection (a).
While there are no direct Federal counterparts to the proposed revisions, we find that the revisions are consistent with the general Federal provisions pertaining to self-bonding at 30 CFR 800.23 and therefore can be approved.
We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. VA- 1090). The Virginia Department of Historic Resources commented that no historic properties will be affected by the provisions of the proposed amendment (Administrative Record No.VA–1095). We received several comments filed jointly by the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards (SAMS) and the Sierra Club (Administrative Record No.VA–2006). Responses to those comments follow. The joint commenters are referred to as “SAMS/Sierra Club” or “the commenters.” SAMS/Sierra Club contend that OSM must disapprove the portion of the amendment that, according to them, “would effectively require any person who disputes the property rights assertion at the root of a [valid existing rights] VER claim either to commence litigation against the permit applicant prior to the expiration of the comment period on the VER request or else allow [the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy] DMME to `evaluate the merits of the information in the record' with respect to disputed property rights and then to `determine whether the [permit applicant] has demonstrated that the requisite property rights exist.' ” The Virginia proposed provision SAMS/Sierra Club refer to is at 4 VAC 25–130–130–761.16(e)(3). They argue that this provision is “fundamentally flawed in at least two respects.”
The agency must issue a determination that you have not demonstrated valid existing rights if your property rights claims are the subject of pending litigation in a court or administrative body with jurisdiction over the property rights in question. The agency will make this determination without prejudice, meaning that you may refile the request once the property rights dispute is finally adjudicated. This paragraph applies only to situations in which legal action has been initiated as of the closing date of the comment period under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(3) of this section.
The VER regulations published by OSM on December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70766–70838), which include the provision quoted above, were challenged by the National Mining Association and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
If the record indicates disagreement as to the accuracy of your property rights claims, but this disagreement is not the subject of pending litigation in a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, the agency must evaluate the merits of the information in the record and determine whether you have demonstrated that the requisite property rights exist under paragraph (a), (c)(1), or (c)(2) of the definition of valid existing rights in § 761.5, as appropriate. The agency must then proceed with the decision process under paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
This Federal provision was part of the same VER challenge that resulted in the upholding of all of the Federal VER regulations promulgated by OSM on December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70766–70838).
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, on August 12, 2008, we requested comments on the amendments from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Virginia program (Administrative Record No. VA–1090). The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management responded and stated that they found no inconsistencies with the proposed changes and the Federal Laws, which govern mining (Administrative Record No. 1067). The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services responded and stated that they did not object to the amendment and deemed the changes appropriate.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. VA–1090). No comments were received.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Based on the above findings, we are approving the amendment sent to us by Virginia on July 17, 2008. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 946, which codify decisions concerning the Virginia program. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency may, upon a showing of good cause, waive the 30 day delay of the effective date of a substantive rule following publication in the
We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Because Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes, making this regulation effective immediately will expedite that process.
The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the fact that the provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve Federal regulations involving Indian lands.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior certifies that the provisions in this rule that are based on counterpart Federal regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State provisions are based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on May 23, 2012.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 946 is amended as set forth below:
30 U.S.C. 1201
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a Special Local Regulation and a Safety Zone for the Billy Bowlegs Pirate Festival in the Santa Rosa Sound, Ft. Walton Beach, FL on June 1 and June 2, 2012. This action is necessary to safeguard participants and spectators, including all crews, vessels, and persons on navigable waters during the Billy Bowlegs Pirate Festival. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting or anchoring in the regulated area is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Table No. 99 and Sector Mobile No. 12; and 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Table No. 144 and Sector Mobile No. 3 will be enforced on June 1 and June 2, 2012.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Lenell J. Carson, Coast Guard Sector Mobile, Waterways Division; telephone 251–441–5940 or email
On June 1 and June 2, 2012, the Coast Guard will enforce the Special Local Regulation in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Table No. 99 and Sector Mobile No. 12, and the Safety Zone in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Table No. 144 and Sector Mobile No. 3 for the annual Billy Bowlegs Pirate Festival.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, all persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, to patrol the event. Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area listed in § 100.801 Table 1, Table No. 99 and Sector Mobile No. 12 may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer and will be operated at a no wake speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft. No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. The Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The Patrol Commander will terminate enforcement of the special regulations at the conclusion of the event.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone listed in Table 1, Table No. 144 and Sector Mobile No. 3 is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
If the Captain of the Port Mobile or Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing five temporary safety zones during Fourth of July Fireworks Displays on certain navigable waterways in Hilton Head Island, Mount Pleasant, Murrells Inlet, North Charleston, and North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. These safety zones are necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG–2012–0384 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email Ensign John R. Santorum, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740–3184, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information regarding the fireworks displays until April 30, 2012. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the fireworks displays. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the fireworks displays.
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 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; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of the rule is to protect the public from the hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States.
Multiple fireworks displays are planned for Fourth of July celebrations throughout the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone. The fireworks will be launched from land, piers, or barges. The fireworks will explode over navigable waters of the United States.
The Coast Guard is establishing five temporary safety zones for Fourth of July Fireworks Displays on navigable waters of the United States within the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone. The five safety zones, with the specific enforcement period for each safety zone, are listed below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the safety zones may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston via telephone at (843) 740–7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the safety zones is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and on-scene designated representatives.
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.
Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation under Executive Order 12866.
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Each safety zone will be enforced for a maximum of 2 hours; (2) vessel traffic in the areas is expected to be minimal during the enforcement periods; (3) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the safety zones without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement periods; (4) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zones if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zones to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Marine Safety Information Bulletins.
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 may affect the following
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are 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 that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing five temporary safety zones that will be enforced for no more than two hours. 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, 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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740–7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is making three separate and independent determinations. First, the EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts), MA-NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area met the applicable deadline of November 15, 2007, for attaining the one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This final determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area attained the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2005–2007 monitoring period. Second, EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone by its applicable attainment date (June 15, 2010), based upon complete, quality-assured, certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007–2009 monitoring period. Third, EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 eight-hour NAAQS for ozone, based upon complete, quality-assured, certified ambient air monitoring data for 2008–2010 monitoring period, and continuing through 2011. Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule, the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plans related to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
This rule is effective on June 28, 2012.
EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0879 and EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0076. All documents in the dockets are listed on the
Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone number (617) 918–1664, fax number (617) 918–0664, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
EPA is making three separate and independent final determinations for the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts), MA–NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area, and the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area.
First, EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts), MA–NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS, by the area's applicable attainment date of November 15, 2007 based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2005–2007 monitoring period. The Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA–NH one-hour ozone nonattainment area consists of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk and Worcester Counties in Massachusetts; along with parts of Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties in southern New Hampshire. (See 40 CFR 81.322, and 81.330.)
Second, EPA is determining, under section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date (June 15, 2010). The Eastern Massachusetts 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area consists of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk and Worcester Counties, in Massachusetts.
Finally, EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008–2010 and 2009–2011 monitoring periods.
On December 14, 2011 (76 FR 77739), EPA published in the
On March 13, 2012 (77 FR 14712), EPA published in the
After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding requirements. See
In accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010. The effect of this determination of attainment by the area's attainment date is to discharge EPA's obligation under section 181(b)(2)(A), and to establish that, in accordance with that section, the area will not be reclassified for failure to attain by its applicable attainment date.
EPA is also determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon the most recent complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data, for the 2008–2010 and 2009–2011 monitoring periods. Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.918), a determination that the area is attaining the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard suspends the requirements for the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and any other planning State Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
EPA's determination that the area has attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard does not constitute a redesignation to attainment for that standard under CAA section 107(d)(3), because EPA has not yet approved a maintenance plan for the area, as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor determined that the area has met the other requirements for redesignation. Thus, the classification and designation status of the area remains moderate nonattainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that it meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
EPA is making three separate and independent determinations. First, EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA–NH one-hour ozone nonattainment area met its applicable one-hour ozone attainment date of November 15, 2007, based on 2005–2007 complete, certified, quality-assured ozone monitoring data. Second, EPA is determining, pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts) moderate 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area met the applicable eight-hour ozone attainment
These actions make determinations of attainment based on air quality, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and/or would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:
• Are not “significant regulatory actions” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do 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 30, 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. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(f) Determination of Attainment for the One-Hour Ozone Standard. Effective June 28, 2012, EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA–NH one-hour ozone nonattainment area met the one-hour ozone standard, by the area's applicable attainment date of November 15, 2007, based on 2005–2007 complete, certified, quality-assured ozone monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the area.
(g)
(2)
(i) Determination of Attainment by the Area's Attainment Date. EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA eight-hour ozone nonattainment area met the applicable June 15, 2010 attainment deadline for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
(ii) EPA is determining that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA eight-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.918), this determination suspends the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) and related requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act for as long as the area continues to attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. If EPA determines, after notice-and comment rulemaking, that the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA area no longer meets the 1997 ozone NAAQS, this determination shall be withdrawn.
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule, published on March 22, 2012, that approved revisions to the Puerto Rico Regulations for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution. Those revisions were submitted to EPA by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board on July 13, 2011, and consist of amendments to Rules 102, 111, 115, 116 and Appendix A. Generally the revisions to the regulations involve administrative changes which improve the clarity of the rules contained in the Commonwealth's Implementation Plan and Operating Permits Program.
The direct final rule is withdrawn as of May 29, 2012.
EPA has established docket number EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0032 for this action. Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the following address for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866.
Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3381.
In the direct final rule published at 77 FR 16676, EPA stated that if we received adverse comments by April 23, 2012, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse comment. EPA will address the comment received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on March 22, 2012 (77 FR 16795). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule.
This final rule reflects the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' commitment to the general principles of the President's Executive Order 13563 released January 18, 2011, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This rule will: implement a new reconsideration process for administrative determinations to disallow claims for Federal financial participation (FFP) under title XIX of the Act (Medicaid); lengthen the time States have to credit the Federal government for identified but uncollected Medicaid provider overpayments and provide that interest will be due on amounts not credited within that time period; make conforming changes to the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) disallowance process to allow States the option to retain disputed Federal funds through the new administrative reconsideration process; revise installment repayment standards and schedules for States that owe significant amounts; and provide that interest charges may accrue during the new administrative reconsideration process if a State chooses to retain the funds during that period. This final rule will also make a technical correction to reporting requirements for disproportionate share hospital payments, revise internal delegations of authority to reflect the term “Administrator or current Designee,” remove obsolete language, and correct other technical errors.
Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes Federal grants to States to jointly fund programs that provide medical assistance to low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. This Federal-State partnership is administered by each State in accordance with an approved State plan. States have considerable flexibility in designing their programs, but must comply with Federal requirements specified in Medicaid statute, regulations, and interpretive agency guidance. Federal financial participation (FFP) is available for State medical assistance expenditures, and administrative expenditures related to operating the State Medicaid program, that are authorized under Federal law and the approved State plan.
For a detailed description of the background of this final rule, please refer to the proposed rule published on August 3, 2011 (76 FR 46685) in the
In addition to the background described in the proposed rule, it is significant that section 6506 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148, enacted on March 23, 2010) (the Affordable Care Act) amended section 1903(d)(2) of the Act to extend the period from 60 days to 1 year for which a State may collect an overpayment from providers before having to return the Federal share of the funds. This section of the Affordable Care Act also provides for additional time beyond the 1 year for States to recover debts due to fraud when a final judgment (including a final determination on an appeal) is pending.
This final rule finalizes provisions set forth in the proposed rule (76 FR 46684). The following is a summary of the provisions and the response to the comments received.
Section 204 of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA), Public Law 110–275, entitled Review of Administrative Claim Determinations, amended section 1116 of the Act by striking “title XIX” from section 1116(d) of the Act, which describes a reconsideration process for disallowances of claimed Federal financial participation (FFP), and added a new section 1116(e) of the Act which provides for a new process for administrative review of Medicaid disallowances. Under the new process, a State may request a reconsideration of a Medicaid disallowance from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) during the 60-day period following receipt of notice of the disallowance. Alternatively, or in addition, States may obtain review by the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Departmental Appeals Board (Board) of either the initial agency decision or the reconsidered decision. Therefore, we proposed to revise § 430.42 to set forth new procedures to review administrative determinations to disallow claims for FFP. These new procedures will provide for the availability of an informal agency reconsideration and a formal adjudication by the HHS Board.
Specifically, we proposed to amend § 430.42(b) to provide States the option to request administrative reconsideration of an initial determination of a Medicaid disallowance.
In § 430.42(c), we proposed the procedures for such a reconsideration, in § 430.42(d) we described the option for a State to withdraw a reconsideration request, and in § 430.42(e) we described the procedures for issuing reconsideration decisions and implementing such decisions.
In § 430.42(f), we proposed that States would have the option of appeal to the Board of either an initial determination of a Medicaid disallowance, or the reconsideration of such a determination under § 430.42(b). The procedures for such an appeal are set forth in § 430.42(g).
In § 430.42(h), we proposed the procedure for issuance and implementation of the final decision. For a detailed description of these options, please refer to the proposed rule (76 FR 46685).
The following is a summary of the comments we received regarding the administrative review of determinations to disallow claims for FFP proposal, and our responses to those comments.
Regarding the liability of interest during the reconsideration process, we note that States are not required to request reconsideration and have the option to return the funds to us during the disallowance process. If a State is afforded the option to, and elects to, retain disallowed FFP during the administrative review period, the State will be charged interest based on the average of the bond equivalent of the weekly 90-day treasury bill auction rates from the date of the disallowance to the date of a final determination, in accordance with section 1903(d)(5) of the Act.
Therefore, we are finalizing without change our proposed revisions to § 430.42 as stated in the proposed rule.
We proposed to revise § 433.38 to clarify the application of interest when the State opts to retain Federal funds. In § 433.38, we proposed to add language clarifying that interest will accrue on disallowed claims of FFP during both the reconsideration process and the Board appeal process. We also proposed to clarify that, if a State chooses to retain the FFP when a claim is disallowed and appeals the disallowance, the interest will continue to accrue through the reconsideration and the Board decision. If the disallowance is upheld, we proposed that the interest would continue to accrue on outstanding balances during any installment repayment period, until the total amount is repaid.
We indicated in the preamble to the proposed rule that we were considering two options for the repayment of interest that accrues from the date of the disallowance notice until the final Board decision when a State elects repayment by installments. It has consistently been our policy that once the State has exhausted all of its administrative appeal rights and the disallowance has been upheld, the principal overpayment amount plus interest through the date of final determination becomes the new overpayment amount. We proposed to provide States with an additional option for repaying that interest during a repayment schedule. We believe that allowing greater flexibility in the repayment of interest during the
If a State chooses to repay the overpayment by installments, the State may choose the option of:
(1) Dividing the new overpayment amount (principal plus initial interest) by the 12-quarters of repayment. The initial interest is interest from the date of the disallowance notice until the first payment. The State will still need to pay interest per quarter on the remaining balance of the overpayment until the final payment. To clarify how this option would work, we provided an example in Table 3 of the proposed rule (76 FR 46689); or
(2) Paying the first installment of the principal plus all interest accrued from the date of the disallowance notice through the first payment. The first installment would include the principal payment plus interest calculated from the date of the disallowance notice. Each subsequent payment would include the principal payment plus interest calculated on the remaining balance of the overpayment amount.
Under section 1903(d)(5) of the Act, a State that wishes to retain the Federal share of a disallowed amount will be charged interest, based on the average of the bond equivalent of the weekly 90-day treasury bill auction rates, from the date of the disallowance to the date of a final determination.
A State that has given a timely written notice of its intent to repay by installments to CMS will accrue interest during the repayment schedule on a quarterly basis at the Treasury Current Value Fund Rate (CVFR), from:
(1) The date of the disallowance notice, if the State requests a repayment schedule during the 60-day review period and does not request reconsideration by CMS or appeal to the Board within the 60-day review period.
(2) The date of the final determination of the administrative reconsideration, if the State requests a repayment schedule during the 60-day review period following the CMS final determination and does not appeal to the Board.
(3) The date of the final determination by the Board, if the State requests a repayment schedule during the 60-day review period following the Board's final determination.
The initial installment will be due by the last day of the quarter in which the State requests the repayment schedule. If the request is made during the last 30 days of the quarter, the initial installment will be due by the last day of the following quarter. Subsequent repayment amounts plus interest will be due by the last day of each subsequent quarter.
The CVFR is based on the Treasury Tax and Loan (TT&L) rate and is published annually in the
For a detailed description of these proposed options, please refer to the proposed rule (76 FR 46686).
We solicited comments related to these approaches and the best application of interest when a State chooses repayment of FFP by installments. We were also interested in any suggestions on alternative approaches with respect to the repayment of interest during the repayment schedule.
The following describes the one timely comment we received regarding the State option to retain Federal funds pending administrative review and interest charges on properly disallowed funds retained by the State.
Therefore, we are finalizing without change our proposal to revise § 433.38 to clarify the application of interest when the State opts to retain Federal funds as stated in the proposed rule.
We proposed to amend § 430.48 to revise the repayment schedule providing more options for States electing a repayment schedule for the payment of Federal funds by installment. We proposed three schedules including schedules that recognize the unique fiscal pressures of States that are experiencing economic distress, and to make technical corrections.
The rationale for the installment repayment schedule is to enable States to continue to operate their programs effectively while repaying the Federal share.
For a detailed description of the proposed options and repayment schedules, please refer to the proposed rule (76 FR 46686).
The following is a summary of the comments we received regarding repayment of Federal funds by installments.
We have proposed three new repayment schedules that will allow States additional time (12 quarters) to make repayments, as well as extend the quarters for making repayment during periods of economic distress. The revisions to the repayment process in § 430.48(c)(5) are needed to ensure that we can verify when repayments are made. We believe that the revised language of the section as stated in the proposed rule will permit this verification.
We also recognized the need for offering additional relief for States that continued to experience significant economic distress when either initiating a repayment schedule or while currently in the standard repayment process. The alternate repayment schedules were developed to assist only States that are experiencing continuous significant periods of economic distress. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recognizes that many professionals and experts around the world define a recession as two or more consecutive quarters of declining real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Our development of a threshold set at a negative percent change on each of 6 previous months is consistent with this widely accepted definition of a recession. The use of a comparison of average annual total seems to be a good measure; however, our research did not identify a widely accepted basis for its use in determining a State's fiscal health.
In consideration of the commenter's suggestion to use a comparison of average annual totals based upon the monthly Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State coincident index, we conducted an analysis to see if the methodology suggested by the commenter will produce significantly different results. The commenter did not define “average annual totals” so we defined it for our analysis as the average of the 12 consecutive months prior to the month in which the repayment was requested, resulting in a decline. We performed our analysis using 6 States identified by the commenter as being penalized by the use of the 6-month standard. Our analysis showed that the use of a comparison of average annual total in the States identified did not produce significantly different results. We also note that depending on the percent change identified by the index of a particular 12-month period, in some cases, the use of the average annual totals could have an adverse effect in certain circumstances. For example, if a State has 6 consecutive months of minimal decline preceded by 6 months of growth exceeding the decline, the average annual total for that State will be positive growth. Under the methodology in this rule, that State will qualify for the alternate repayment schedule available upon request, but under the average annual total methodology that State will not qualify. Therefore, for the reasons noted above, we do not believe it will be beneficial to modify our methodology as identified in the proposed rule.
We reviewed this issue by identifying 9 States whose budgets rely heavily on sales taxes and 8 States whose budgets rely heavily on income taxes. We performed an analysis using the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State coincident index to see if we could determine a difference in States qualifying for an economic distress repayment schedule based on their tax revenue sources. Our analysis did not show a significant difference in qualifying for an alternate repayment schedule between States that rely heavily on general sales tax and those that rely heavily on income taxes.
We also contacted various sources to obtain an understanding of how a State's revenue based on general sales tax will be affected by a recession. Our sources provided a general overview of the effect of State tax revenue during a recession stating that income tax is often more volatile than sales tax. In some States, the sales tax may also be volatile. Most States rely on both a sales and an income tax, which makes up less than one-third of the total taxes. Therefore, there will not necessarily be a significant difference during a recession.
We believe that the use of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State coincident index is the best indicator of a State's monthly fiscal health. We note that the trend for each State's index is set to the trend of its GPD and that the data used in determining the index is the best approximation of the type of information used to determine a national recession. We believe that the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia provides for a more equitable treatment of States, is transparent to the public,
We also note the commenter's assertion that there are other indicators that may provide a more accurate determination of a State's fiscal health and that these indicators are not measured by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. We conducted research and analyzed several potential economic distress measures before making our determination to use the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Each measure has some advantages and disadvantages. We found that this is the best option for determining economic distress on a State-by-State basis. It also met the criteria that we believe will best serve States and CMS in making a determination.
The Federal Reserve Banks have been operating since November 16, 1914. The Federal Reserve Banks' structure consists of both the public or government sector and the private sector. The public sector is represented by a Board of Governors appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The private sector is represented by a board of directors. We are confident in relying on data produced by an entity that is part of the Federal Reserve System.
Therefore, we are finalizing without change our proposal to amend § 430.48 to revise the repayment schedule providing more options for States electing a repayment schedule for the payment of Federal funds by installment as stated in the proposed rule.
We proposed to revise § 433.300 through § 433.322 in accordance with section 6506 of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions amended section 1903(d)(2) of the Act to provide an extension of the period for collection of provider overpayments. Under the new provisions, States have up to 1 year from the date of discovery of an overpayment made to a Medicaid provider to recover or to attempt to recover such an overpayment, unless the overpayment is due to fraud. At the end of the 1-year period, the State is required to return to the Federal government the Federal share of any overpayment not yet returned.
For a detailed description of these provisions, please refer to the proposed rule (76 FR 46691).
The following is a summary of the comments we received regarding refunding of Federal share of overpayments to providers.
Therefore, we are finalizing without change our proposal to revise § 433.300 through § 433.322 in accordance with section 6506 of the Affordable Care Act as stated in the proposed rule.
This rule updates references at § 430.30 by striking “CMS–25” and adding “CMS–37.” The CMS–25 was renamed to the CMS–37, but the changes were never codified in regulation. We took the opportunity in this final rule to make the correction. States are currently using the CMS–37 form.
This final rule will revise the language in the delegation of authority for deferral determinations under § 430.40 and for disallowance determinations under § 430.42 to reflect the term “Administrator or current Designee.” This revision will ensure that future changes in the internal structure of CMS will not affect the authority of the Regional Office to impose deferral and disallowance of claims for FFP.
We proposed technical changes that remove UPL transition period language at § 447.272 and § 447.321. The last transition period expired on September 30, 2008.
This final rule corrects a technical error in the regulation text at § 447.299(c)(15). This paragraph provides a narrative description of how “total uninsured IP/OP uncompensated care costs” is to be calculated from component data elements. The first sentence unintentionally and incorrectly references costs associated with Medicaid eligible individuals in the description of uninsured uncompensated costs. This reference is incorrect and could not be interpreted reasonably to contribute to an accurate description of “total uninsured IP/OP uncompensated care costs.” Additionally, it erroneously contradicts section 1923(g) of the Act, § 447.299, 42 CFR part 455 subpart D, and longstanding CMS policy. The second sentence of § 447.299(c)(15) accurately identifies the component data elements and correctly describes the calculation of “total uninsured IP/OP uncompensated care costs,” which does not include Medicaid eligible individuals.
We did not receive any comments pertinent to these provisions. Therefore, we are finalizing without change these provisions as stated in the proposed rule.
The CHIP regulations at § 457.210 through § 457.212 and 457.218 mirror Medicaid regulations at 42 CFR parts 430 and 433 related to deferrals, disallowances, and repayment of Federal funds by installments. We proposed to make conforming changes to both the Medicaid and CHIP programs by striking § 457.210 through § 457.212 and § 457.218 and incorporating the requirements of 42 CFR part 430. We are incorporating these through reference in § 457.628(a).
We are also incorporating the requirements of 42 CFR part 433 with respect to overpayments. Section 2105(c)(6)(B) of the Act incorporates the overpayment requirements of section 1903(d)(2) of the Act into CHIP. Therefore, we are also amending the CHIP regulations to reflect the overpayment requirements as revised by the Affordable Care Act. We are incorporating these through reference in § 457.628(a).
We did not receive any comments pertinent to these provisions. Therefore, we are finalizing without change these provisions as stated in the proposed rule.
The commenter also agreed that States should retain the authority to seek a formal adjudication by the Health and Human Services' Departmental Appeals Board.
The commenter also stated support for the proposal to determine economic distress on a State-by-State basis rather than relying solely on a national indicator because since the causes and timing of economic distress and recovery vary dramatically by State.
The commenter noted that the proposed change to § 433.320 aligns the Federal regulation with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and provides State Medicaid agencies with the clarity needed to pursue overpayments to providers due to fraud. The commenter stated that State Medicaid directors are committed to working with Federal policymakers to improve program integrity tools and ensure States are not penalized for their diligent work in pursuing waste, fraud, and abuse.
As a result of our review of the comments we received during the public comment period, as discussed in section II. of this preamble, we are finalizing the proposed revisions as outlined in the proposed rule with the following exception:
We are revising § 430.40(c)(4) to make the language consistent throughout the proposed rule. The regulation has been revised to change the language in the delegation of authority for deferral determinations under § 430.40 and for disallowance determinations under § 430.42 to reflect the term “Administrator or current Designee.”
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are required to provide 30-day notice in the
• The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
All of the information collection requirements contained in this document are either exempt from the PRA or are currently approved under a valid OMB control number. Therefore, while we are not submitting any information collection requests to OMB for review and approval, we will consider public comments we may receive on these requirements.
Section 430.42 was revised in accordance with the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) to set forth new procedures to review administrative determinations to disallow claims for FFP. These new procedures provide for an informal agency reconsideration that must be submitted in writing to the Administrator within 60 day after receipt of a disallowance letter. The reconsideration request must specify the findings or issues with which the State disagrees and the reason for the disagreement. It also may include supporting documentary evidence that the State wishes the Administrator to consider.
The burden associated with this requirement is the time and effort necessary for the State Medicaid agency to draft and submit the reconsideration letter and supporting documentation. Although this requirement is subject to the PRA, we believe that 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), exempts the reconsideration letter as a collection of information and the PRA. In this case, the information associated with the reconsideration will be collected subsequent to an administrative action, that is, a determination to disallow.
Section 2105(c)(6)(B) of the Act incorporates the overpayment requirements of section 1903(d)(2) of the Act into CHIP. The overpayment regulations at § 433.322 require that the Medicaid Agency “maintain a separate record of all overpayment activities for each provider in a manner that satisfies
The recordkeeping requirements set out under 45 CFR 92.42 (and § 433.322) are adopted from OMB Circular A–110.
The information collection requirements associated with CMS–37 are approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number 0938–0101. This final rule will not impose any new or revised reporting or recordkeeping requirements concerning CMS–37.
The information collection requirements associated with CMS–64 are approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number 0938–0067. This final rule will not impose any new or revised reporting or recordkeeping requirements concerning CMS–64.
If you comment on the information collection and recordkeeping requirements identified above, please submit your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
This final rule implements changes to the following:
• Section 1116 of the Act as set forth in section 204 of the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–275, enacted on July 15, 2008) to provide a new reconsideration process for administrative determinations to disallow claims for FFP under title XIX of the Act (Medicaid).
• Section 1903(d)(2) of the Act as set forth in section 6506 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148, enacted on March 23, 2010) (the Affordable Care Act), to lengthen the time States have to credit the Federal government for identified but uncollected Medicaid provider overpayments and provides that interest is due for amounts not timely credited within that time period.
• Section 2107(e)(2)(B) of the Act which makes section 1116 of the Act applicable to CHIP, to the same extent as it is applicable to Medicaid, for administrative review, unless inconsistent with the CHIP statute.
• Enable States to continue to operate their Medicaid programs effectively while repaying the Federal share of unallowable expenditures and to provide more flexibility for States to manage their budgets during periods of economic downturn.
• Clarify that interest charges accrue during the new administrative reconsideration process as set forth in section 204 of the
We conducted a review of existing regulations to correct a technical error in the regulation text at § 447.299(c)(15) which erroneously contradicts section 1923(g) of the Act, § 447.299, 42 CFR part 455 subpart D, and longstanding CMS policy; revise internal delegations of authority to reflect the term “Administrator or current Designee”; remove obsolete language; and correct other technical errors in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011.
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (February 2, 2011), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104–4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most physician practices, hospitals and other providers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by qualifying as small businesses under the Small Business Administration's size standards (revenues of less than $7.0 to $34.5 million in any 1 year). States and individuals are not included in the definition of a small entity. For details, see the Small Business Administration's Web site at
The Secretary has also determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We did not prepare an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2012, that threshold is approximately $139 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments,
The final rule provides States with the option to use certain provisions as well as proposes new requirements or changes to existing interpretations of statutory or regulatory requirements. For a detailed description of the provisions of the proposed rule, please refer to the proposed rule (76 FR 46693).
This section provides an overview of regulatory alternatives that we considered for the proposed rule. In determining the appropriate guidance to assist States in their efforts to meet Federal requirements, we conducted analysis and research in both the public and private sector. Based, in part, on this analysis and research we arrived at the provisions which were in the proposed rule (76 FR 46694).
In the proposed rule (76 FR 46694), we set out procedures for States to request a reconsideration of a disallowance to the CMS Administrator. For a detailed description of the procedures considered, please refer to the proposed rule.
In the proposed rule (76 FR 46694), we proposed three schedules including schedules that recognize the unique fiscal pressures of States that are experiencing economic distress. For a detailed description of the schedules considered, please refer to the proposed rule.
For the reasons discussed above, we did not prepare analysis for either the RFA or section 1102(b) of the Act because we determined that this regulation will not have a direct significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or a direct significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Claims, Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Drugs, Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR Chapter IV, as set forth below:
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(b)
(c) * * *
(2)
(a) * * *
(1) The Administrator or current Designee questions its allowability and needs additional information to resolve the question; and
(b) * * *
(1) Within 15 days of the action described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the current Designee sends the State a written notice of deferral that—
(c) * * *
(3) If the current Designee finds that the materials are not in readily reviewable form or that additional information is needed, he or she promptly notifies the State that it has 15 days to submit the readily reviewable or additional materials.
(4) If the State does not provide the necessary materials within 15 days, the current Designee disallows the claim.
(5) The current Designee has 90 days, after all documentation is available in readily reviewable form, to determine the allowability of the claim.
(6) If the current Designee cannot complete review of the material within 90 days, CMS pays the claim, subject to a later determination of allowability.
(e) * * *
(1) The Administrator or current Designee gives the State written notice of his or her decision to pay or disallow a deferred claim.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(9) A statement indicating that the disallowance letter is the Department's
(b)
(2) To request reconsideration of a disallowance, a State must complete the following:
(i) Submit the following within 60 days after receipt of the disallowance letter:
(A) A written request to the Administrator that includes the following:
(
(
(
(
(B) A copy of the written request to the Regional Office.
(C) Send all requests for reconsideration via registered or certified mail to establish the date the reconsideration was received by CMS.
(ii) In all cases, the State has the burden of documenting the allowability of its claims for FFP.
(iii) Additional information regarding the legal authority for the disallowance will not be reviewed in the reconsideration but may be presented in any appeal to the Departmental Appeals Board under paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(3) A State may request to retain the FFP during the reconsideration of the disallowance under section 1116(e) of the Act, in accordance with § 433.38 of this subchapter.
(4) The State is not required to request reconsideration before seeking review from the Departmental Appeals Board.
(5) The State may also seek reconsideration, and following the reconsideration decision, request a review from the Board.
(6) If the State elects reconsideration, the reconsideration process must be completed or withdrawn before requesting review by the Board.
(c)
(2) After consideration of the policies and factual matters pertinent to the issues in question, the Administrator shall, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the request for reconsideration, issue a written decision or a request for additional information as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3) At the Administrator's option, CMS may request from the State any additional information or documents necessary to make a decision. The request for additional information must be sent via registered or certified mail to establish the date the request was sent by CMS and received by the State.
(4) Within 30 days after receipt of the request for additional information, the State must submit to the Administrator, with a copy to the Regional Office in readily reviewable form, all requested documents and materials.
(i) If the Administrator finds that the materials are not in readily reviewable form or that additional information is needed, he or she shall notify the State via registered or certified mail that it has 15 business days from the date of receipt of the notice to submit the readily reviewable or additional materials.
(ii) If the State does not provide the necessary materials within 15 business days from the date of receipt of such notice, the Administrator shall affirm the disallowance in a final reconsideration decision issued within 15 days from the due date of additional information from the State.
(5) If additional documentation is provided in readily reviewable form under the paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the Administrator shall issue a written decision, within 60 days from the due date of such information.
(6) The final written decision shall constitute final CMS administrative action on the reconsideration and shall be (within 15 business days of the decision) mailed to the State agency via registered or certified mail to establish the date the reconsideration decision was received by the State.
(7) If the Administrator does not issue a decision within 60 days from the date of receipt of the request for reconsideration or the date of receipt of the requested additional information, the disallowance shall be deemed to be affirmed upon reconsideration.
(8) No section of this regulation shall be interpreted as waiving the Department's right to assert any provision or exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.
(d)
(2) Within 60 days after CMS' receipt of a State's withdrawal request, a State may, in accordance with (f)(2) of this section, submit a notice of appeal to the Board.
(e)
(2) If the reconsideration decision requires an adjustment of FFP, either upward or downward, a subsequent grant award will be issued in the amount of such increase or decrease.
(3) Within 60 days after the receipt of a reconsideration decision from CMS a State may, in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section, submit a notice of appeal to the Board.
(f)
(2) A State that wishes to appeal a disallowance to the Board must:
(i) Submit a notice of appeal to the Board at the address given on the Departmental Appeals Board's web site within 60 days after receipt of the disallowance letter.
(A) If a reconsideration of a disallowance was requested, within 60 days after receipt of the reconsideration decision; or
(B) If reconsideration of a disallowance was requested and no written decision was issued, within 60 days from the date the decision on reconsideration of the disallowance was due to be issued by CMS.
(ii) Include all of the following:
(A) A copy of the disallowance letter.
(B) A statement of the amount in dispute.
(C) A brief statement of why the disallowance is wrong.
(3) The Board's decision of an appeal under paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be the final decision of the Secretary and shall be subject to reconsideration by the Board only upon a motion by either party that alleges a clear error of fact or law and is filed during the 60-day period that begins on the date of the Board's decision or to judicial review in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
(g)
(1) In all cases, the State has the burden of documenting the allowability of its claims for FFP.
(2) The Board shall conduct a thorough review of the issues, taking into account all relevant evidence, including such documentation as the State may submit and the Board may require.
(h)
(2) The Board will issue a final written decision to the State consistent with 45 CFR Part 16.
(3) If the appeal decision requires an adjustment of FFP, either upward or downward, a subsequent grant award will be issued in the amount of increase or decrease.
(a)
(1) The amount to be repaid exceeds 0.25 percent of the estimated or actual annual State share for the Medicaid program.
(2) The State has given the Regional Office written notice, before total repayment was due, of its intent to repay by installments.
(b)
(1) If the Medicaid program is ongoing, CMS uses the annual estimated State share of Medicaid expenditures for the current year, as shown on the State's latest Medicaid Program Budget Report (CMS–37). The current year is the year in which the State requests the repayment by installments.
(2) If the Medicaid program has been terminated by Federal law or by the State, CMS uses the actual State share that is shown on the State's CMS–64 Quarterly Expense Report for the last four quarters filed.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(ii) The minimum quarterly repayment amounts for each of the quarters in the repayment schedule is 0.25 percent of the estimated State share of the current annual expenditures for Medicaid;
(iii) The repayment period may be less than 12 quarters when the minimum repayment amount is required.
(4)
(ii) The quarterly repayment amount will be 8
(5)
(ii) A State may choose to make payment by Automated Clearing House (ACH) direct deposit, by check, or by Fedwire transfer.
(6)
(d)
(2)
(ii) A period of economic distress is one in which the State demonstrates distress for at least each of the previous 6 months, ending the month prior to the date of the State's written request for an alternate repayment schedule, as determined by a negative percent change in the monthly Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank State coincident index.
(3)
(4)
(ii) The maximum quarterly repayment amounts for each of the first 8 quarters in the repayment schedule is 0.25 percent of the annual State share determination as defined in paragraph (b) of this section;
(iii) For the remaining 4 quarters, the quarterly repayment amount equals the remaining balance of the overpayment amount divided by the remaining 4 quarters.
(5)
(A) In these circumstances, paragraph (d)(3) of this section is followed for repayment of the amount equal to 100 percent of the estimated State share of current annual expenditures.
(B) The remaining amount of the repayment is in quarterly amounts equal to 8
(ii) Upon request by the State, the repayment schedule may be extended beyond 12 quarterly installments if the State has qualifying periods of economic distress in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section during the first 8 quarters of the alternate repayment schedule.
(A) To qualify for additional quarters, the States must demonstrate a period of economic distress in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section for at least 1 month of a quarter during the first 8 quarters of the alternate repayment schedule.
(B) For each quarter (of the first 8 quarters of the alternate payment schedule) identified as qualified period of economic distress, one quarter will be
(C) The total number of quarters in the alternate repayment schedule shall not exceed 20 quarters.
(6)
(ii) A State may choose to make payment by Automated Clearing House (ACH) direct deposit, by check, or by Fedwire transfer.
(7) If the State chooses to repay amounts representing higher percentages during the early quarters, any corresponding reduction in required minimum percentages is applied first to the last scheduled payment, then to the next to the last payment, and so forth as necessary.
(e)
(2)
(ii) A period of economic distress is one in which the State demonstrates distress for each of the previous 6 months, that begins on the date of the State's request for an alternate repayment schedule, as determined by a negative percent change in the monthly Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank State coincident index.
(3)
(4)
(ii) The maximum quarterly repayment amounts for each of the first 8 quarters in the repayment schedule is 0.25 percent of the annual State share determination as defined in paragraph (b) of this section;
(iii) For the remaining 4 quarters, the quarterly repayment amount equals the remaining balance of the overpayment amount divided by the remaining 4 quarters.
(5)
(ii) In these circumstances, paragraph (d)(3) of this section is followed for repayment of the amount equal to 100 percent of the estimated State share of current annual expenditures;
(iii) The remaining amount of the repayment is in quarterly amounts equal to 8
(6)
(ii) A State may choose to make payment by Automated Clearing House (ACH) direct deposit, by check, or by Fedwire transfer.
(7) If the State chooses to repay amounts representing higher percentages during the early quarters, any corresponding reduction in required minimum percentages is applied first to the last scheduled payment, then to the next to the last payment, and so forth as necessary.
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) CMS will charge the State interest on FFP when—
(i) CMS has notified the Medicaid agency under § 430.42 of this subpart that a State's claim for FFP is not allowable;
(ii) The agency has requested a reconsideration of the disallowance to the Administrator under § 430.42 of this chapter and has chosen to retain the FFP during the administrative reconsideration process in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section;
(iii)(A) CMS has made a final determination upholding part or all of the disallowance;
(B) The agency has withdrawn its request for administrative reconsideration on all or part of the disallowance; or
(C) The agency has reversed its decision to retain the funds without withdrawing its request for administrative reconsideration and CMS upholds all or part of the disallowance.
(iv) The agency has appealed the disallowance to the Departmental Appeals Board under 45 CFR Part 16 and has chosen to retain the FFP during the administrative appeals process in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(v)(A)The Board has made a final determination upholding part or all of the disallowance;
(B) The agency has withdrawn its appeal on all or part of the disallowance; or
(C) The agency has reversed its decision to retain the funds without withdrawing its appeal and the Board upholds all or part of the disallowance.
(3) Unless an agency decides to withdraw its request for administrative reconsideration or appeal on part of the disallowance and therefore returns only that part of the funds on which it has withdrawn its request for administrative reconsideration or appeal, any decision to retain or return disallowed funds must apply to the entire amount in dispute.
(c)
(2) The agency must mail its notice to the CMS Regional Office within 60 days of the date of receipt of the notice of the disallowance, as established by the
(3) If the agency withdraws its decision to retain the FFP or its request for administrative reconsideration or appeal on all or part of the FFP, the agency must notify CMS in writing.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) On the date of the final determination by CMS of the administrative reconsideration if the State elects not to appeal to the Board, or final determination by the Board;
(ii) On the date CMS receives written notice from the State that it is withdrawing its request for administrative reconsideration and elects not to appeal to the Board, or withdraws its appeal to the Board on all of the disallowed funds; or
(iii) If the agency withdraws its request for administrative reconsideration on part of the funds on—
(A) The date CMS receives written notice from the agency that it is withdrawing its request for administrative reconsideration on a specified part of the disallowed funds for the part on which the agency withdraws its request for administrative reconsideration; and
(B) The date of the final determination by CMS on the part for which the agency pursues its administrative reconsideration; or
(iv) If the agency withdraws its appeal on part of the funds, on—
(A) The date CMS receives written notice from the agency that it is withdrawing its appeal on a specified part of the disallowed funds for the part on which the agency withdraws its appeal; and
(B) The date of the final determination by the Board on the part for which the agency pursues its appeal; or
(v) If the agency has given CMS written notice of its intent to repay by installment, in the quarter in which the final installment is paid. Interest during the repayment of Federal funds by installments will be at the Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR); or
(vi) The date CMS receives written notice from the agency that it no longer chooses to retain the funds.
(b) Section 1903(d)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act, which provides that a State has 1 year from discovery of an overpayment for Medicaid services to recover or attempt to recover the overpayment from the provider before adjustment in the Federal Medicaid payment to the State is made; and that adjustment will be made at the end of the 1-year period, whether or not recovery is made, unless the State is unable to recover from a provider because the overpayment is a debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy or is otherwise uncollectable.
This subpart sets forth the requirements and procedures under which States have 1 year following discovery of overpayments made to providers for Medicaid services to recover or attempt to recover that amount before the States must refund the Federal share of these overpayments to CMS, with certain exceptions.
(a)
(2) The State Medicaid agency must refund the Federal share of overpayments at the end of the 1-year period following discovery in accordance with the requirements of this subpart, whether or not the State has recovered the overpayment from the provider.
(a)
(c)
(d)
(2) When the State is unable to recover a debt which represents an overpayment (or any portion thereof) resulting from fraud within 1 year of discovery because no final determination of the amount of the overpayment has been made under an administrative or judicial process (as applicable), including as a result of a judgment being under appeal, no adjustment shall be made in the Federal payment to such State on account of such overpayment (or any portion thereof) until 30 days after the date on which a final judgment (including, if applicable, a final determination on an appeal) is made.
(3) The Medicaid agency may treat an overpayment made to a Medicaid provider as resulting from fraud under subsection (d) of this section only if it has referred a provider's case to the Medicaid fraud control unit, or appropriate law enforcement agency in States with no certified Medicaid fraud control unit, as required by § 455.15, § 455.21, or § 455.23 of this chapter, and the Medicaid fraud control unit or appropriate law enforcement agency has provided the Medicaid agency with written notification of acceptance of the case; or if the Medicaid fraud control unit or appropriate law enforcement agency has filed a civil or criminal action against a provider and has notified the State Medicaid agency.
(f)
(1) A downward adjustment in the amount of an overpayment subject to recovery that occurs after discovery does not change the original 1-year recovery period for the outstanding balance.
(2) An upward adjustment in the amount of an overpayment subject to recovery that occurs during the 1-year period following discovery does not change the 1-year recovery period for the original overpayment amount. A new 1-year period begins for the incremental amount only, beginning with the date of the State's written notification to the provider regarding the upward adjustment.
(g)
(a) * * *
(2) The agency must notify the provider that an overpayment exists in any case involving a bankrupt or out-of-business provider and, if the debt has not been determined uncollectable, take reasonable actions to recover the overpayment during the 1-year recovery period in accordance with policies prescribed by applicable State law and administrative procedures.
(b)
(c)
(1) The provider has filed for bankruptcy in Federal court at the time of discovery of the overpayment or the provider files a bankruptcy petition in Federal court before the end of the 1-year period following discovery; and
(d) * * *
(1) The agency is not required to refund to CMS the Federal share of an overpayment at the end of the 1-year period following discovery if the provider is out of business on the date of discovery of the overpayment or if the provider goes out of business before the end of the 1-year period following discovery.
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) The agency must credit CMS with the Federal share of overpayments subject to recovery on the earlier of—
(i) The Form CMS–64 submission due to CMS for the quarter in which the State recovers the overpayment from the provider; or
(ii) The Form CMS–64 due to CMS for the quarter in which the 1-year period following discovery, established in accordance with § 433.316, ends.
(4) If the State does not refund the Federal share of such overpayment as indicated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the State will be liable for interest on the amount equal to the Federal share of the non-recovered, non-refunded overpayment amount. Interest during this period will be at the Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR), and will accrue beginning on the day after the end of the 1-year period following discovery until the last day of the quarter for which the State submits a CMS–64 report refunding the Federal share of the overpayment.
(b) * * *
(1) The State is not required to refund the Federal share of an overpayment at the end of the 1-year period if the State has already reported a collection or submitted an expenditure claim reduced by a discrete amount to recover the overpayment prior to the end of the 1-year period following discovery.
(d)
(f) * * *
(2) The Form CMS–64 submission for the quarter in which the 1-year period following discovery of the overpayment ends.
(g) * * *
(1) If a provider is determined bankrupt or out of business under this section after the 1-year period following discovery of the overpayment ends and the State has not been able to make complete recovery, the agency may reclaim the amount of the Federal share of any unrecovered overpayment amount previously refunded to CMS. CMS allows the reclaim of a refund by the agency if the agency submits to CMS documentation that it has made reasonable efforts to obtain recovery.
(h) * * *
(1) Amounts of overpayments not collected during the quarter but refunded because of the expiration of the 1-year period following discovery;
The Medicaid agency must maintain a separate record of all overpayment activities for each provider in a manner that satisfies the retention and access requirements of 45 CFR 92.42.
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(c) * * *
(15)
(i) The amount should be the result of subtracting paragraphs (c)(12) and (c)(13), from paragraph (c)(14) of this section.
(ii) The uncompensated care costs of providing physician services to the uninsured cannot be included in this amount.
(iii) The uninsured uncompensated amount also cannot include amounts associated with unpaid co-pays or deductibles for individuals with third party coverage for the inpatient and/or outpatient hospital services they receive or any other unreimbursed costs associated with inpatient and/or outpatient hospital services provided to individuals with those services in their third party coverage benefit package.
(iv) The uncompensated care costs do not include bad debt or payer discounts related to services furnished to individuals who have health insurance or other third party payer.
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(a) HHS regulations in § 433.312 through § 433.322 of this chapter (related to Overpayments); § 433.38 of this chapter (Interest charge on disallowed claims of FFP); § 430.40 through § 430.42 of this chapter (Deferral of claims for FFP and Disallowance of claims for FFP); § 430.48 of this chapter (Repayment of Federal funds by installments); § 433.50 through § 433.74 of this chapter (sources of non-Federal share and Health Care-Related Taxes and Provider Related Donations); and § 447.207 of this chapter (Retention of Payments) apply to State's CHIP programs in the same manner as they apply to State's Medicaid programs.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects technical and typographical errors that appeared in the final rule, interim final rule, published in the
Alissa DeBoy, (301) 492–4428.
In FR Doc. 2012–6125 of March 27, 2012, (77 FR 18310) there were technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected in the “Correction of Errors” section below. The provisions in this correction notice are effective as if they had been included in the document published on March 27, 2012. Accordingly, the corrections are effective on May 29, 2012.
On page 18327, in the preamble discussion of standards for consumer assistance tools, there are errors in references to the regulations text. The cross references to § 155.200(a) and § 155.200(b) are incorrect, and are being corrected to read § 155.205(a) and § 155.205(b), respectively, which are the provisions discussing the Exchange call center and Web site.
On page 18331, the preamble explains that Exchanges cannot require Navigators to have agent and broker licenses. However, one sentence implies that any licensure standards for Navigators would cause Navigators to be agents and brokers, which is inaccurate. The sentence also incorrectly implies that establishing any licensure standards would not be allowed, which would conflict with § 155.210(c)(1)(iii). Therefore, we are adding the word “such” to the following sentence to refer specifically to agent and broker licensure. We are also adding the word “in,” immediately preceding the citation, which was accidentally omitted before. The revised sentence will read as follows: “Thus, establishing such licensure standards for Navigators would mean that all Navigators would be agents and brokers, and would violate the standard set forth in § 155.210(c)(2) of the final rule that at least two types of entities must serve as Navigators.”
On page 18336, the preamble discusses the potential for future standards related electronic notices and coordination of notices between Medicaid, CHIP, and the Exchanges. We indicate that future rulemaking will be issued for these standards. We are correcting these references to state that future guidance will be released to provide more information on electronic notices and notices coordination.
On page 18341, in preamble discussion of privacy and security standards, we are correcting two errors. First, the definition of personally identifiable information in § 155.260(a) of the proposed rule published on July 15, 2011, was not included in the final rule in order to align the definition with a memorandum released by the Office of Management and Budget. In the preamble, the cross reference to § 155.260(a), which does not exist in the final rule, is replaced with “as defined in the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M–07–16.”
Second, on page 18341, the preamble uses the term “personally identifiable health information.” The privacy and security section of the final rule applies to “personally identifiable information.” Personally identifiable health information is a subset of this term, and is not the focus of the rule, as stated in the preamble. The word “health” was
On page 18344, in the preamble discussion of privacy and security standards, we are correcting two cross references that were not updated from the references in the proposed rule regarding the codification of section 1413(c) of the Affordable Care Act. To align the cross references with the correct final rule provisions, the reference to § 155.260(b)(3) is being changed to § 155.260(a)(6) and the reference to § 155.260(c) is being changed to § 155.260(e). We are also removing the word “section,” which was used in addition to the symbol “§ ,” thus removing the redundancy.
On page 18396, in the preamble discussion of the Small Business Health Options Program, the text incorrectly states that “…a SHOP must provide a premium calculator to qualified employers.” The premium calculator should be made available to the employees; therefore, we are correcting “qualified employers” to “qualified employees.”
On pages 18413 and 18414, in the preamble discussion of decertifying qualified health plans, the text refers twice to the special enrollment period in the case of QHP decertification in § 155.410, but should reference § 155.420, which is the section outlining special enrollment periods.
On page 18429, the preamble discusses the effective date of termination at the end of the 3-month grace period for individuals receiving advance payments of the premium tax credit. The regulations text states that a QHP issuer must terminate the individual's coverage at the end of the first month of the 3-month grace period. However, the preamble is inconsistent in stating that the QHP issuer “can” terminate coverage on the first day of the second month of the grace period. The regulations text accurately reflects the policy stating that QHP issuers must terminate on the last day of the first month of the grace period. Therefore, we are correcting the preamble to be consistent with the regulations text by changing the word “can” to “must” and by aligning the termination date with the regulations text.
On page 18450, we presented regulatory changes to § 155.260(d), which outlines specifics for Exchanges in developing written policies and procedures regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personally identifiable information. This paragraph was intended to be consistent with paragraph (a) of § 155.260, which also applies to the creation of personally identifiable information. In this notice, we are adding the word “creation” to § 155.260(d).
On page 18456, we presented regulatory changes to § 155.315(f)(5)(i). Due to changes during drafting, the reference to paragraph (i) is incorrect, and was intended to refer to paragraph (g) of that section. We are correcting this reference.
On page 18461, we presented regulatory changes to § 155.345(g)(3), which states that an Exchange cannot request “information of documentation” that an individual already provided to a different insurance affordability program. This was a typographical error that should read “information or documentation,” to be consistent with preamble text and accurately communicate the standard.
On page 18464, we presented our regulatory changes to § 155.430(c)(2), which directs Exchanges to send termination information to the QHP issuer and HHS “promptly and without undue delay.” This timeliness standard is consistent with the reporting of enrollment established in § 155.400(b)(1). However, we mistakenly added another qualification in § 155.430(c)(2) that such information be reported “at such time and in such manner as HHS may specify.” The latter phrase is not necessary in light of the more specific standard that such information be reported promptly and without undue delay.
On page 18467, we presented our regulatory changes to § 155.1020(a) with respect to rate increase justifications. We inadvertently left out the word “increase,” and are adding it to the regulations text to be consistent across provisions and aligned with the preamble, and to more clearly communicate our intent.
On page 18468, in § 155.1080(b), we inadvertently used the word “meet” instead of “meets,” which results in incorrect subject-verb agreement, and are amending this to be correct.
On page 18469, in § 156.20, in the definition of “Level of coverage”, we mistakenly defined the term “level of coverage” by referring to section 1302(d)(2) of the Affordable Care Act. The bronze, silver, gold, and platinum levels of coverage are defined in section 1302(d)(1) of the Affordable Care Act; therefore, we are correcting this error.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
This notice merely corrects technical and typographic errors in the Exchanges final rule that was published on March 27, 2012 and becomes effective on May 29, 2012. The changes are not substantive to the Exchanges policy. Therefore, we believe that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate these corrections and delaying the effective date of these changes is unnecessary. In addition, we believe it is important for the public to have the correct information as soon as possible, and believe it is contrary to the public interest to delay the dissemination of it. For the reasons stated above, we find there is good cause to waive notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delay in the effective date for this correction notice.
In FR Doc. 2012–6125 of March 27, 2012, (77 FR 18310), make the following corrections:
1. On page 18327, in the third column—
A. In the first full paragraph, in line 6, the cross reference to “§ 155.200(a)” is corrected to “§ 155.205(a)”.
B. In the second full paragraph, in line 2, the cross reference to “§ 155.200(b)” is corrected to “§ 155.205(b)”.
2. On page 18331, in the third column; in the second full paragraph, in line 12, add the word “such” before the word “licensure” and the word “in” before “§ 155.210(c)(2)”.
3. On page 18336, in the second column; in the last paragraph—
A. In lines 7 and 8, the phrase “future rulemaking” is corrected to read “future guidance.”
B. In line 10, the phrase, “Future rulemaking” is corrected to read “Future guidance”.
4. On page 18341—
A. In the second column; in the third paragraph, in lines 26 and 27, the term “personally identifiable health information” is corrected to read “personally identifiable information.”
B. In the third column; in the first partial paragraph, in line 4, the reference to “§ 155.260(a)” is replaced with “the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M–07–16.”
5. On page 18344, in the second column; in the third paragraph, in lines 11 and 12, the references to “§ 155.260(b)(3) and § 155.260(c)” are corrected to “§ 155.260(a)(6) and § 155.260(e)”.
6. On page 18396, in the third column; in the second to last paragraph, in lines 9 and 10, the term “qualified employers” is corrected to “qualified employees.”
7. On page 18413, in the third column; in the last paragraph, in the first line, the cross reference to “§ 155.410” is corrected to “§ 155.420”.
8. On page 18414, in the first column; in the first partial paragraph, in the first line, the reference to “§ 155.410” is corrected to “§ 155.420.”
9. On page 18429, in the first column; in the first paragraph, the first sentence is corrected to read, “We clarify in final § 156.270(g) that if an individual exhausts the grace period without settling all outstanding premium payments, then the QHP issuer must terminate coverage retroactively to the last day of the first month of the grace period.”
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is finalizing regulations previously published as an interim rule on January 13, 2006. The interim rule was published to amend the maritime personnel licensing rules to include new security requirements when mariners apply for original, renewal, and raise-of-grade licenses and certificates of registry, but was never published as a final rule. The Coast Guard is finalizing the one remaining section of the interim rule that has remained unfinalized, which is the definition of a dangerous drug.
This final rule is effective June 28, 2012.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2004–17455, and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Gerald Miante, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1407, email
On June 16, 2011, we published a notice of intent with request for comments titled “Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses and Certificates of Registry (MMLs)” in the
On January 13, 2006, the Coast Guard published in the
The most recent significant rulemaking documents addressing the interim rule provisions are as follows
The one section of the January 13, 2006, interim rule that has remained unfinalized is the definition of “dangerous drug” for subchapter B at 46 CFR 10.107(b). That provision defines “Dangerous drug” to mean a narcotic drug, a controlled substance, or a controlled-substance analogue (as defined in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 802)). This definition was originally published in the January 13, 2006, interim rule as part of 46 CFR 10.103. A subsequent rulemaking, Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials, redesignated definitions in subchapter B to 46 CFR 10.107(b) (74 FR 11216) and implemented changes to the other definitions listed within the section. The Coast Guard is finalizing this one remaining definition from the interim rule in its current designation, 46 CFR 10.107(b).
No comments were received. As a result, no changes are being made.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This final 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.
This final rule is intended to finalize the definition of a dangerous drug in § 10.107(b). It does not impose any additional impacts or costs on the marine industry or the public.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rulemaking, which finalizes a lawfully promulgated interim rule, does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 604.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 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. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Gerald P. Miante, Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard, telephone 202–372–1407, email
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has federalism implications 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 evaluated this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that although the rule is preemptive of state law or regulation, it does 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. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels) are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States.
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. This rule will not result in such an expenditure.
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 that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (c) of the Instruction. This rule involves regulations that are editorial and concern qualification and certification of maritime personnel. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR part 10 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. chapter 72; 46 U.S.C. chapter 75; 46 U.S.C. 7701, 8906 and 70105; Executive Order 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is finalizing one section of regulations previously published as an interim rule on January 6, 2004. The interim rule was published to enhance the application procedures for the Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation program, which were necessary to improve maritime safety and promote the national security interest of the United States, but was never published as a final rule. The Coast Guard is finalizing the one remaining section of the interim rule that has remained unfinalized, which is a statement of the purpose of the rules in this part.
This final rule is effective June 28, 2012.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2003–14500, and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Gerald Miante, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1407, email
On June 16, 2011, we published a notice of intent with request for comments titled “Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Documents (MMDs)” in the
On January 6, 2004, the Coast Guard published in the
The most recent significant rulemaking documents addressing the interim rule provisions are as follows
The one section of the January 6, 2004, interim rule that has remained unfinalized is 46 CFR 12.01–1(a)(1):
No comments were received. As a result, no changes were made.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the
This final 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.
This final rule is intended to finalize 46 CFR 12.01–1(a)(1), which is the one remaining section of regulations previously published as an interim rule on January 6, 2004, that has not already been finalized. That section is a statement of the purpose of the rules in part 12. Since this final rule does not actually modify the statement of the purpose in the referenced part, there are no costs to the merchant marine industry and in particular the mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rulemaking, which finalizes a lawfully promulgated interim rule and changes prefatory text only, does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 604.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 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. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Gerald P. Miante, Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard, telephone 202–372–1407, email
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has federalism implications 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 evaluated this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that although the rule is preemptive of state law or regulation, it does 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. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels) are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States.
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. This rule will not result in such an expenditure.
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 (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 (
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 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (c) of the Instruction. This final rule involves regulations that are editorial and concern qualification of maritime personnel. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR part 12 as follows:
31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7301, 7302, 7503, 7505, 7701, and 70105; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) * * *
(1) A comprehensive and adequate means of determining and verifying the identity, citizenship, nationality, and professional qualifications an applicant must possess to be eligible for certification to serve on merchant vessels of the United States;
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission reconsiders and modifies certain provisions of its rules that were adopted in the
Effective June 28, 2012.
Amy Bender, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–1469, Victoria Goldberg, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–1520.
This is a summary of the Commission's in WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 07–135, 05–337, 03–109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket Nos. 01–92, 96–45; WT Docket No. 10–208; FCC 12–47, released on April 25, 2012. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, and at the following Internet address: The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via email at
1. In this Order, we address several issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of the
2. With this standard in mind, in this Order we take several limited actions stemming from reconsideration petitions. We grant a request to permit carriers accepting incremental support in Phase I of the Connect America Fund (CAF) to receive credit for deploying broadband to certain unserved locations in partially served census blocks, and deny a number of other requests to modify the rules governing CAF Phase I. In addition, we also grant in part a request by Frontier-Windstream and the Rural Associations to reconsider the VoIP intercarrier compensation rules adopted in the
3. In the
4. Participation in CAF Phase I is optional: That is, carriers will be able to choose how much of their allocated incremental support to accept based on the broadband obligations that accompany the support. Each carrier will be required to deploy broadband to a number of locations equal to the amount of incremental support it accepts divided by $775. As the Commission explained, that standard was designed to reach as many locations as possible as cost-effectively as possible—to “spur immediate broadband deployment to as many unserved locations as possible” with the limited funds available by “encourag[ing] carriers to use the support in lower-cost areas where there is [nevertheless] no private sector business case for deployment of broadband.” And, to ensure that these deployments reach those who are otherwise unserved and are unlikely to be served in the near future, the Commission required carriers to certify, among other things, that the locations they would deploy to are shown as unserved by fixed broadband with a minimum speed of 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream on the National Broadband Map; that, to the best of the carrier's knowledge, the location is not in fact served; and that incremental support would not be used to satisfy merger commitments or similar regulatory obligations.
5. Various parties ask us to reconsider aspects of these rules. Below, we grant in part a request by the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) that we modify the rules and permit carriers, in certain circumstances, to receive credit in CAF Phase I for deploying to unserved locations based on a certification that they are unserved, even though such locations are identified as served on the National Broadband Map. In addition, we deny requests from Frontier and Windstream, along with the United States Telecom Association (US Telecom), that we reconsider the $775 per-location deployment requirement. We also deny their request that we permit carriers to receive credit in CAF Phase I for improving broadband service to underserved locations—locations where broadband is available, but does not meet the requirements for new CAF Phase I deployments. We also deny Windstream's request, in the alternative, that we permit carriers to use CAF Phase I incremental support to deploy second-mile fiber facilities. Finally, we deny a request by Frontier and Windstream that the $300 million in incremental support be allocated among carriers by calculating distributions “as if” the incremental support mechanism were distributing both incremental support and frozen high-cost support, rather than only incremental support.
6. First, ITTA asks us to reconsider the rule that carriers receiving CAF Phase I incremental support must deploy broadband to locations shown on the National Broadband Map as unserved by fixed broadband. ITTA argues that the National Broadband Map in some cases “overstates fixed broadband coverage” and that excluding unserved areas from eligibility for CAF Phase I deployment because they appear as served on the Map would mean that consumers in those areas would not benefit from CAF Phase I. ITTA, in an
7. Our analysis of ITTA's petition is informed by a balancing of considerations. On the one hand, CAF Phase I is an interim measure intended to accelerate deployment to those unserved locations that can be reached in the near term. Given our goal of deploying new funding quickly, we believe it is reasonable to focus deployment on areas where it is clear that no broadband exists, rather than to create a potentially burdensome and time-consuming process to identify other areas without service. On the other hand, we do believe that, where adjustments can be made in a way that will not create undue delays, modifying the rules to permit carriers to accept as much incremental support as possible—and thus deploy broadband to more unserved locations—would serve the public interest.
8. ITTA first notes that in some census blocks, the incumbent local exchange provider is the only provider shown by the National Broadband Map as offering fixed broadband services. But, as ITTA explains, the reporting methodology used to create the Map “indicates that an entire census block is served by the [incumbent] LEC even if only a single location in that census block is able to receive broadband.” In such situations, ITTA observes, the incumbent LEC knows which locations are actually served and which are actually unserved, and it proposes that the carrier should be able to receive credit in CAF Phase I for deploying broadband to locations that it certifies were not, in fact, already served.
9. We conclude that modifying our rule to provide additional flexibility in this situation will promote the goals of CAF Phase I. Accordingly, we will permit carriers accepting CAF Phase I support to satisfy their deployment requirement by deploying to locations identified on the National Broadband Map as served if the Map reflects that the only provider of fixed broadband to the location is the incumbent carrier itself, the locations are in fact unserved by broadband, and the carrier makes the certifications required by § 54.312(b)(3) of our rules.
10. ITTA also argues that some census blocks are shown in some of the tools available on the National Broadband Map Web site as being served by a carrier other than the incumbent LEC, but that the data underlying the Map “clearly identifies that the non-ILEC provider serves only a part of the census block.” This situation can arise in certain situations when, for example, the data underlying the Map show that a cable operator offers broadband to only certain locations within a census block. ITTA proposes that a carrier receiving CAF Phase I support be able to receive credit in CAF Phase I for deploying to locations in such blocks to the extent that the data underlying the
11. We conclude that no change to the rules is necessary to address this concern. Section 54.312(b)(3) of our rules requires that a carrier certify that the locations to be served to satisfy its deployment requirement “are shown as unserved by fixed broadband on the then-current version of the National Broadband Map.” We take this opportunity to clarify that if the data underlying the Map show that a location is not served by a particular provider, then, for the purposes of this rule, the location is “shown as unserved” by that provider.
12. In addition, ITTA claims that there are locations which the National Broadband Map indicates are served by a carrier other than the incumbent LEC, but which the incumbent LEC reasonably believes are not, in fact, served by that other provider. ITTA proposes that carriers receive credit for deploying to such areas, if they provide evidence that there are unserved locations in the area. Specifically, ITTA proposes a CAF Phase I support recipient be permitted to provide a certification that, to the best of the carrier's knowledge, there are unserved locations in a census block notwithstanding that the Map indicates that those locations are served. ITTA proposes that the recipient be permitted to—but not required to—provide “consumer declarations or other supporting evidence” supporting its certification. If it does, the certification would not be subject to rebuttal. On the other hand, if the carrier does not provide any declarations or other supporting evidence, other broadband providers in the area would have up to 30 days to respond to the certification. To rebut the CAF Phase I recipient's certification, ITTA proposes that those other providers would be required to certify that they can provide service throughout the relevant area and would be required to provide one or more consumer declarations from customers who either currently or in the past have subscribed to the provider's service within the relevant area. If no provider rebutted the CAF Phase I recipient's certification, the CAF Phase I recipient would be permitted to deploy to unserved locations in the census block at issue.
13. We decline to adopt this aspect of ITTA's proposal. ITTA does not explain how a CAF Phase I recipient would know which locations—other than any locations for which it has obtained a consumer's declaration—in a census block are actually unserved by any other carrier. In addition, we observe that ITTA's proposal would require a provider wishing to challenge the CAF Phase I recipient's certification to provide a declaration within 30 days from a customer or former customer in the census block. That task might be quite time consuming given limited resources. Worse, it might not be possible, because a provider may have no customers in a particular census block, even though it offers service there. Yet ITTA would apparently have us provide CAF Phase I incremental support to incumbents to deploy in such locations. On balance, we cannot conclude on the record before us that adopting ITTA's proposed process, which may not significantly increase the number of locations that are likely to receive new broadband, would serve the public interest.
14. ITTA, joined by several carriers, also asks that we permit carriers receiving CAF Phase I incremental support to deploy broadband to locations that are served by another broadband provider but where the service offered by that other provider does not meet defined service characteristics. They propose that the other provider offer service of at least 768 kbps sustained download speed, with a usage limit no lower than 53 gigabytes per month, all at a price no higher than the month-to-month price of the highest price for a similar product from a wireline provider in the state.
15. We decline to adopt this proposal for several reasons. We acknowledge that some consumers may live in areas ineligible for CAF Phase I support even though the broadband available to them does not currently meet our goals. The Commission chose in CAF Phase I, however, to focus limited resources on deployments to extend broadband to some of the millions of unserved Americans who lack access to broadband entirely, rather than to drive faster speeds to those who already have service. We are not persuaded that the decision about the more pressing need was unreasonable. Moreover, we are not persuaded that permitting CAF Phase I recipients to overbuild other broadband providers represents the most efficient use of limited CAF Phase I support. In addition, we conclude that we do not have an adequate record at this time to make a determination about how high a competitor's price must be—either alone or in combination with usage limits—before we would support overbuilding that competitor, a critical component of petitioners' request.
16. Second, Frontier, Windstream and USTelecom seek reconsideration of the requirement that a carrier accepting incremental support in CAF Phase I deploy broadband to a number of unserved locations equal to the amount each carrier accepts divided by $775. In particular, these parties take issue with the use of $775 as a nationwide estimate for the appropriate amount of per-location support.
17. In adopting the $775 figure, the Commission recognized that, in the absence of a fully developed cost model, the choice of a per-location support amount necessarily involved an exercise of judgment. The Commission weighed a variety of considerations, including the fact that resources for this interim mechanism were limited and the goal to “spur immediate broadband deployment to as many unserved locations as possible.” The Commission also considered several sources of data, including deployment projects undertaken by a mid-size price cap carrier under the Rural Utilities Service's Broadband Initiatives Program, data from analysis done as part of the National Broadband Plan, and an analysis performed using the ABC plan cost model, submitted by a group of price cap carriers.
18. Petitioners argue that the comparison with the BIP deployments (which showed an average per-location cost of $557) was faulty, because, “[a]s the Commission acknowledges in the
19. In any event, the heart of Frontier, Windstream and USTelecom's argument is that the Commission should adopt carrier-specific deployment requirements for CAF Phase I rather than use a nationwide figure for the per-location support offered. As Frontier and Windstream explain: “The fact that some locations within another carrier's territory might be served for $400 or less does nothing for another carrier's consumers when that carrier's least-expensive unserved locations would cost $1,000 or more to serve.” They assert that they are in the latter situation: because of their history of aggressively deploying broadband, “there are relatively few, if any, unserved areas left in Petitioners' service areas that can be reached for $775 or less.” Petitioners propose that we develop a carrier-specific requirement by using the CostQuest Broadband Analysis Tool (CQBAT), a cost model submitted as part of a proposal by several large carriers for reform of the high-cost universal service support mechanism.
20. We decline to adopt the proposed carrier-by-carrier approach. Petitioners may have deployed to many or all of the locations in their territories for which $775 represents an adequate subsidy, but CAF Phase I incremental support, as established in the
21. Third, several parties ask us to modify the broadband deployment requirement for CAF Phase I to permit carriers to meet their obligations not just by deploying broadband to previously unserved locations, but also by upgrading service to locations that are “underserved”—locations, for example, that are served by broadband at speeds less than the 4 megabits downstream required for new deployments in CAF Phase I. Frontier and Windstream argue that underserved areas should be eligible for support in CAF Phase I because, in order to deploy broadband to unserved locations, “facility upgrades in underserved areas may be required,” and, what is more, those investments may be “very significant.” As explained above, however, the Commission's focus in CAF Phase I was to spur broadband deployment to consumers who lack access to broadband, not to improve service for those who already have access to some form of high-speed Internet access. We recognize that as they extend broadband to previously unserved areas, carriers may need to upgrade network facilities shared by both served and unserved locations. However, we believe the $775 per newly served location appropriately takes account of the cost of these upgrades. That is, we conclude it is only appropriate to support such shared investments through CAF Phase I to the extent that they do not drive the required subsidy per unserved location above $775.
22. Fourth, in an
23. We decline to adopt Windstream's proposal for second-mile fiber support. While we agree with Windstream that deploying second-mile fiber facilities is a worthwhile endeavor, we reiterate that the focus of CAF Phase I is a relatively narrow one: to spur deployment of broadband to relatively low-cost locations that nevertheless currently have no service at all, while we implement CAF Phase II. It is not intended to be a long-term program or to serve all broadband deployment needs, such as the need to eventually replace existing broadband facilities to meet projected demand. Instead, the need for such investments is more appropriately considered in the broader context of the CAF Phase II mechanism.
24. Finally, Frontier and Windstream request that we clarify or reconsider how the $300 million allocated to CAF Phase I will be distributed among carriers. The
25. According to Frontier and Windstream, the two approaches “differ markedly in how they allocate the incremental $300 million.” That is so because the CAF Phase I incremental support allocation mechanism allocates support “from the top down.” Specifically, a per-location cost is calculated for each wire center; support is then calculated for the carrier serving that wire center based on the amount by which that per-location cost exceeds a funding threshold, multiplied by the total number of locations in the wire center. The funding threshold is set so that the specified amount of support, either $300 million or $1.3 billion, is allocated. Setting the funding threshold to distribute $1.3 billion would of course result in a lower threshold than
26. We decline to change the CAF Phase I support calculation as advocated by Frontier and Windstream. We remain unconvinced that it would be reasonable to allocate the $300 million in incremental CAF Phase I support “as-if” a different amount of support were being allocated. CAF Phase I is an interim support mechanism, designed to be a simple, easily administered tool to provide a boost to broadband deployment in the near term while the Wireline Competition Bureau develops a support model for CAF Phase II. We acknowledge that there were other ways the Commission could have established the amounts of support each carrier would be eligible for in this interim mechanism. But Frontier and Windstream have not shown that their proposed methodology, which would add a degree of complexity for an uncertain benefit, would likely serve the goals of CAF Phase I more effectively than the methodology adopted in the
27.
28. In light of new evidence in the record, we reconsider an aspect of the transitional intercarrier compensation framework adopted for originating VoIP traffic. For purposes of the
29. Frontier and Windstream and certain rural associations filed petitions, seeking, among other things, clarification that originating intrastate toll VoIP traffic was subject to default rates equal to intrastate originating access under the
30.
31. The record reveals that there has been some uncertainty regarding the default origination charges for intrastate toll VoIP traffic under the framework adopted in the
32. More fundamentally, these arguments reflect a mistaken understanding of key elements of the
33. The record on reconsideration, however, indicates that prior to the
34. This new evidence regarding the status quo prior to the
35. In particular, consistent with Frontier's proposal, we amend part 51 of our rules to permit LECs to tariff default rates equal to their intrastate originating access rates when they originate intrastate toll VoIP traffic from the effective date of our the revised rules until June 30, 2014—effective July 1, 2014, LECs will be permitted to tariff default rates for such traffic equal to their interstate originating access rates. This is to be considered a transitional rate. We do not find it appropriate to permit default origination charges equal to intrastate access rates indefinitely, consistent with the Commission's recognized need to “reduce disputes and provide greater certainty to the industry regarding intercarrier compensation revenue streams while also reflecting the Commission's move away from the pre-existing, flawed intercarrier compensation regimes that have applied to traditional telephone service” under the framework adopted in the
36. Indeed, the
37. As with the national VoIP intercarrier compensation framework adopted in the
38. We disagree with commenters who argue that the Commission has not sufficiently justified its legal authority to permit transitional origination charges for toll VoIP traffic consistent with sections 251(b)(5) and 251(g) of the Act. As the Commission explained in the
39. We also make clear that the new default rate for originating intrastate toll VoIP traffic applies regardless of whether the VoIP traffic originates in TDM or IP format. The VoIP intercarrier compensation rules adopted in the
40. This “VoIP symmetry rule” was incorporated in the codified intercarrier compensation rules for toll VoIP traffic. Section 51.913(a) of the Commission's rules specifies the rate applicable to all “Access Reciprocal Compensation subject to this subpart exchanged between a local exchange carrier and another telecommunications carrier in Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) format that originates and/or terminates in IP format,” without distinguishing among classes of VoIP traffic depending upon whether they originate in TDM or IP. In addition, § 51.913(b) of the rules makes clear that a LEC “shall be entitled to assess and collect the full Access Reciprocal Compensation charges prescribed by this subpart that are set forth in a local exchange carrier's interstate or intrastate tariff for the access services defined in § 51.903” even if the relevant origination or termination functions are performed by the LEC's retail VoIP provider partner—which, of necessity, would be performing these functions in IP, rather than TDM. Likewise, the rules make clear that “functions provided by a LEC as part of transmitting telecommunications between designated points using, in whole or in part, technology other than TDM transmission” count equally as access services for purposes of § 51.903 of the Commission's rules as those performed in TDM.
41. The Petitions focus on the factual scenario of TDM-originated VoIP traffic, and do not request reconsideration of the VoIP symmetry rule nor state that interstate rates should continue to apply to IP-originated VoIP traffic. Precisely because the Petitions did not ask the Commission to reconsider the VoIP symmetry rule, however, they necessarily implicate the rate regulations for all originating intrastate VoIP traffic, because all such traffic would have to be considered for the Petitions to be accommodated within the framework of the VoIP symmetry rule. As commenters observe, the Petitions would be inconsistent with the symmetrical rules adopted in the
42. Notably, we would not grant the requests for reconsideration of our VoIP intercarrier compensation rules if the symmetry rule were not applicable here. The Commission adopted the symmetry requirement in the
43. This Second Order on Reconsideration contains no new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13, so no review nor approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required.
44. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
45. This Second Order on Reconsideration adopts revisions to 47 CFR parts 51 and 54. We hereby certify that the revision to part 54 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Previously, our rules governing Phase I of the Connect America Fund required, among other things, that carriers accepting incremental support deploy only to locations shown as unserved on the National Broadband Map. In this Order, we revise our rules to expand the areas to which such carriers may deploy, by permitting them to also deploy to unserved locations that are shown as served by the carrier itself, a change we make in recognition of the fact that the Map generally shows wireline coverage on a census-block-by-census-block basis, and thus shows an entire census block as served by the incumbent carrier even when there may be many locations in the block that are, in fact, not served. We conclude that this change to our rules will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the Order (or a summary thereof) and certification will be published in the
46. The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
47. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) were incorporated in the
48.
49. In this Second Order on Reconsideration, the Commission reconsidered the transitional intercarrier compensation framework adopted in the
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business.
73. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the SBA.
74.
75. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA defines a small business size standard for this category as any such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 955 firms in this previous category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 939 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Order.
76.
77. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the
78.
79.
80.
81.
82. As of March 2010, there were 424,162 PLMR licensees operating 921,909 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. We note that any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, and that any revised rules in this context could therefore potentially impact small entities covering a great variety of industries.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Order.
98. The second category of Other Telecommunications “primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109. We did not identify any feasible alternatives that would have lessened the economic impact on small entities. In the absence of an agreement, there is no other way than through a tariff filing to effectuate the new default rates where increased rates may be allowed.
110.
111. Accordingly,
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the Second Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 51 and 54 as follows:
Sections 1–5, 7, 201–05, 207–09, 218, 220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 706 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 157, 201–05, 207–09, 218, 220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302, 47 U.S.C. 157
(a)(1) Terminating Access Reciprocal Compensation subject to this subpart exchanged between a local exchange carrier and another telecommunications carrier in Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) format that originates and/or terminates in IP format shall be subject to a rate equal to the relevant interstate terminating access charges specified by this subpart. Interstate originating Access Reciprocal Compensation subject to this subpart exchanged between a local exchange carrier and another telecommunications carrier in Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) format that originates and/or terminates in IP format shall be subject to a rate equal to the relevant interstate originating access charges specified by this subpart.
(2) Until June 30, 2014, intrastate originating Access Reciprocal Compensation subject to this subpart exchanged between a local exchange carrier and another telecommunications carrier in Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) format that originates and/or terminates in IP format shall be subject to a rate equal to the relevant intrastate originating access charges specified by this subpart. Effective July 1, 2014, originating Access Reciprocal Compensation subject to this subpart exchanged between a local exchange carrier and another telecommunications carrier in Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) format that originates and/or terminates in IP format shall be subject to a rate equal to the relevant interstate originating access charges specified by this subpart.
(3) Telecommunications traffic originates and/or terminates in IP format if it originates from and/or terminates to an end-user customer of a service that requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(3) A carrier may elect to accept or decline incremental support. A holding company may do so on a holding-company basis on behalf of its operating companies that are eligible telecommunications carriers, whose eligibility for incremental support, for these purposes, shall be considered on an aggregated basis. A carrier must provide notice to the Commission, relevant state commissions, and any affected Tribal government, stating the amount of incremental support it wishes to accept and identifying the areas by wire center and census block in which the designated eligible telecommunications carrier will deploy broadband to meet its deployment obligation, or stating that it declines incremental support. Such notification must be made within 90 days of being notified of any incremental support for which it would be eligible. Along with its notification, a carrier accepting incremental support must also submit a certification that the locations to be served to satisfy the deployment obligation are not shown as served by fixed broadband provided by any entity other than the certifying entity or its affiliate on the then-current version of the National Broadband Map; that, to the best of the carrier's knowledge, the locations are, in fact, unserved by fixed broadband; that the carrier's current capital improvement plan did not already include plans to complete broadband deployment within the next three years to the locations to be counted to satisfy the deployment obligation; and that incremental support will not be used to satisfy any merger commitment or similar regulatory obligation.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is making amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) in order to make editorial changes.
Ms. Ynette Shelkin, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060; telephone 571–372–6089.
DFARS Case 2012–D032 was published in the
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS, upon request of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), hereby issues regulations pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to authorizing professional fireworks displays within the MBNMS in California waters, for the period of July 4, 2012, through July 3, 2017. These regulations, which allow for the issuance of Letters of Authorization for the incidental take of marine mammals during the described activities and specified timeframes, prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, as well as requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Effective from June 28, 2012, through June 28, 2017.
A copy of MBNMS's application may be obtained by writing to Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or visiting the internet at:
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined `negligible impact' in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines `harassment' as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
On April 28, 2011, NMFS received a complete application from MBNMS requesting authorization for take of two species of marine mammals incidental to coastal fireworks displays conducted at MBNMS under authorizations issued by MBNMS. NMFS first issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to MBNMS on July 4, 2005 (70 FR 39235; July 7, 2005), and subsequently issued 5-year regulations governing the annual issuance of Letters of Authorization (LOAs) under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (71 FR 40928; July 19, 2006). Upon expiration of those regulations, NMFS issued MBNMS an IHA (76 FR 29196; May 20, 2011), which expires on July 3, 2012. During the effective period of this final rule (July 4, 2012 until July 3, 2017), MBNMS may authorize as many as 20 fireworks displays in designated areas per year and, as a result, marine mammals will be exposed to elevated levels of sound as well as increased human activity associated with those displays. Because the specified activities have the potential to take marine mammals present within the action area, MBNMS may be authorized to take, by Level B harassment only, California sea lions (
The MBNMS adjoins 276 mi (444 km), or approximately 25 percent, of the central California coastline, and encompasses ocean waters from mean high tide to an average of 25 mi (40 km) offshore between Rocky Point in Marin County and Cambria in San Luis Obispo County. Fireworks displays have been conducted over current MBNMS waters for many years as part of national and community celebrations (e.g., Independence Day, municipal anniversaries), and to foster public use and enjoyment of the marine environment. In central California, marine venues are the preferred setting for fireworks in order to optimize public access and avoid the fire hazard associated with terrestrial display sites. Many fireworks displays occur at the height of the dry season in central California, when area vegetation is particularly prone to ignition from sparks or embers.
In 1992, the MBNMS was the first national marine sanctuary (NMS) to be designated along urban shorelines and therefore has addressed many regulatory issues previously not encountered by the NMS program. Authorization of professional fireworks displays has required a steady refinement of policies and procedures related to this activity. Fireworks displays, and the attendant increase in human activity, are known to result in the behavioral disturbance of pinnipeds, typically in the form of temporary abandonment of haul-outs. As a result, pinnipeds hauled out in the vicinity of authorized fireworks displays may exhibit behavioral responses that indicate incidental take by Level B harassment under the MMPA. Numbers of California sea lions and harbor seals, the species that may be subject to harassment, have been recorded extensively at four regions where fireworks displays are authorized in MBNMS. Based on these data and MBNMS's estimated maximum number of fireworks displays, MBNMS may be authorized to incidentally harass up to 4,219 California sea lions and 230 harbor seals annually over the 5-year time span of this final rule, from July 4, 2012, to July 3, 2017.
Since 1993, the MBNMS, a component of NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, has processed requests for the professional display of fireworks that affect MBNMS. The MBNMS has determined that debris fallout (i.e., spent pyrotechnic materials) from fireworks events may constitute a discharge into the sanctuary and thus violate sanctuary regulations, unless an authorization is issued by the superintendent. Therefore, sponsors of fireworks displays conducted in the MBNMS are required to obtain sanctuary authorization prior to conducting such displays (see 15 CFR 922.132).
Professional pyrotechnic devices used in fireworks displays can be grouped into three general categories: Aerial shells (paper and cardboard spheres or cylinders ranging from 2–12 in (5–30 cm) diameter and filled with incendiary materials), low-level comet and multi-shot devices similar to over-the-counter fireworks (e.g., roman candles), and ground-mounted set piece displays that are mostly static in nature. Fireworks displays were described in detail in the
The MBNMS issued 91 authorizations for professional fireworks displays from 1993–2011. However, the MBNMS staff projects that as many as twenty coastal displays per year may be conducted in, or adjacent to, MBNMS boundaries in the future. Thus, the number of displays will be limited to not more than twenty events per year in four specific areas along 276 mi (444 km) of coastline. Fireworks displays will not exceed 30 minutes (with the exception of up to two displays per year, each not to exceed 1 hour) in duration and will occur with an average frequency of less than or equal to once every 2 months within each of the four prescribed display areas. NMFS believes—and extensive monitoring data indicates—that incidental take resulting from fireworks displays will be, at most, the short-term flushing and evacuation of non-breeding haul-out sites by California sea lions and harbor seals.
A more detailed description of the fireworks displays authorized by MBNMS may be found in MBNMS' application, in MBNMS' Assessment of Pyrotechnic Displays and Impacts within the MBNMS 1993–2001 (2001), or in the report of Marine Mammal Acoustic and Behavioral Monitoring for the MBNMS Fireworks Display, 4 July 2007 (2007), which are available at:
The Monterey Bay area is located in the Oregonian province subdivision of the Eastern Pacific Boreal Region. The six types of habitats found in the bay area are: (1) Submarine canyon habitat, (2) nearshore sublittoral habitat, (3) rocky intertidal habitat, (4) sandy beach intertidal habitat, (5) kelp forest habitat, and (6) estuarine/slough habitat. Monterey Bay supports a wide array of temperate cold-water species with occasional influxes of warm-water species, and this species diversity is directly related to the diversity of habitats.
Pyrotechnic displays within the sanctuary are conducted from a variety of coastal launch sites (e.g., beaches, bluff tops, piers, offshore barges, golf courses). Authorized fireworks displays will be confined to only four general prescribed areas (with seven total sub-sites) within the sanctuary, while displays along the remaining 95 percent of sanctuary coastal waters will be prohibited. These sites were approved for fireworks events based on their proximity to urban areas and pre-existing high human use patterns, seasonal considerations such as the abundance and distribution of marine
The four conditional display areas are located, from north to south, at Half Moon Bay, the Santa Cruz/Soquel area, the northeastern Monterey Peninsula, and Cambria (Santa Rosa Creek) (see Maps A–J in MBNMS' application). The number of displays will be limited to not more than 20 total events per year within these four specific areas combined, along the whole 276 mi (444 km) of coastline. The display areas were described in detail in the
NMFS published the proposed rule in the
There are 26 known species of marine mammals within the Monterey Bay area. However, only six of these species are likely to be present in the acute impact area (the area where sound, light, and debris effects may have direct impacts on marine organisms and habitats) during a fireworks display. These species include the California sea lion, harbor seal, southern sea otter (
Though the three aforementioned cetaceans are known to frequent nearshore areas within the sanctuary, they have never been reported in the vicinity of a fireworks display, nor have there been any reports to the MBNMS of stranding events or of injured/dead animals discovered after any display. Because sound attenuates rapidly across the air-water interface, these animals would likely not encounter the effects of fireworks except when surfacing for air. NMFS does not anticipate any take of cetaceans and they are not addressed further in this document.
Past sanctuary observations have not detected any disturbance to sea otters as a result of the fireworks displays; however, past observations have not included specific surveys for this species. Sea otters do frequent all general display areas. Sea otters and other species may temporarily depart the area prior to the beginning of the fireworks display due to increased human activities. Some sea otters in Monterey harbor have become well-acclimated to very intense human activity, often continuing to feed undisturbed as boats pass simultaneously on either side and within 20 ft (6 m) of the otters. It is therefore possible that select individual otters may have a higher tolerance level than others to fireworks displays. Otters in residence within the Monterey harbor display a greater tolerance for intensive human activity than their counterparts in more remote locations. However, otters are not under NMFS' jurisdiction. The MBNMS consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding effects on southern sea otters. The USFWS issued a biological opinion on June 22, 2005, which concluded that the authorization of fireworks displays is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species within the sanctuary or to destroy or adversely modify any listed critical habitat. The USFWS further found that MBNMS would be unlikely to take any southern sea otters, and therefore issued neither an incidental take statement under the ESA nor an IHA.
The northern elephant seal is seen so infrequently in the areas with fireworks displays that they are not likely to be impacted by fireworks displays. Therefore, the only species likely to be harassed by the fireworks displays are the California sea lion and the harbor seal. Detailed species accounts of the California sea lion and harbor seal were provided in the
The potential effects of the specified activity, including physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, the effects of sound and light, and increased boat traffic, were described in detail in the
The anticipated effects of the specified activity on marine mammal habitat, including those from fireworks debris and chemical residue, were described in detail in the
The MBNMS has monitored commercial fireworks displays for potential impacts to marine life and habitats since 1993. In July 1993, the MBNMS performed its initial field observations of professional fireworks at the annual Independence Day fireworks display conducted by the City of Monterey. Subsequent documented field observations were conducted in Monterey by the MBNMS staff on seven occasions between 1994 and 2002. Documented field observations were also made at Aptos each October from 2000 to 2005, and have been made for all authorized fireworks under NMFS-issued MMPA authorizations, beginning in 2005. Though monitoring techniques and intensity have varied over the years and visual monitoring of wildlife abundance and behavioral responses to nighttime displays is challenging, observed impacts have been consistent. Wildlife activity nearest to disturbance areas returns to normal (pre-display species distribution, abundance, and activity patterns) within 12–15 hours, and no signs of wildlife injury or mortality have ever been discovered as a result of managed fireworks displays.
Sea lions are generally more tolerant of noise and visual disturbances than harbor seals. In addition, pups and juveniles of either species are more
The same surveys have noted that the small numbers of harbor seals that are typically present usually do not haul out after the initial fireworks detonation, but remain in the water around the haul-out. The observed behavior of the seals after the initial disturbance and during the fireworks display is similar to responses observed during rocket launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), where harbor seals loitered in the water adjacent to their haul-out site during the launch and returned to shore within 2 to 22 minutes after the launch disturbance.
A private environmental consultant monitored the Aptos fireworks display each October from 2001 through 2005 (per California Coastal Commission permit conditions) and concluded that harbor seal activity returned to normal at the site by the day following the display. Surveys have detected no evidence of injury or mortality in harbor seals as a result of the annual 30-minute fireworks display at the site.
Since harbor seals are smaller than sea lions and are less vocal, their movements and behavior are often more difficult to observe at night. In general, harbor seals are more timid and easily disturbed than California sea lions. Thus, based on past observations of sea lion disturbance thresholds and behavior, it is very likely that harbor seals evacuate exposed haul-outs in the acute impact area during fireworks displays, though they may loiter in adjacent surface waters until the fireworks have concluded. In conclusion, fireworks displays likely result in temporary displacement from haul-outs, constituting a short-term disruption in behavior, and pinnipeds are likely to resume normal behavior and full utilization of haul-outs within approximately 12 hours.
In 2007, MBNMS conducted acoustic monitoring in conjunction with in-depth behavioral monitoring for the City of Monterey Independence Day fireworks display. MBNMS was required to: (1) Conduct counts of marine mammals present within the fireworks impact area immediately before and one day after the event; (2) conduct behavioral observations of marine mammals present during the display; and (3) conduct NMFS-approved acoustic monitoring of sound levels for the duration of the event. The full report (Marine Mammal Acoustic and Behavioral Monitoring for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Fireworks Display 4 July 2007) is available at
Acoustic monitoring began approximately 3 hours prior to the beginning of the fireworks display. During those 3 hours, the average 1-hour sound level (L
From 2006–2011, under the regulations in effect from July 4, 2006, through July 3, 2011 (71 FR 40928; July 19, 2006), and a subsequent 1-year IHA, 24 fireworks events were authorized in the MBNMS. For each display, observers conducted a pre-event census to document abundance of marine mammals and post-event surveys to record any injured or dead wildlife species. Pre-event censuses were assumed to be a reasonable proxy for the number of incidental takes, as all animals present within the vicinity of the display area would be expected to temporarily abandon haul-outs prior to or during fireworks displays. Table 1 summarizes these monitoring efforts. In all cases, no pinnipeds other than those authorized for taking were observed, and post-event monitoring revealed no injured or dead marine mammals.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the specified activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on each species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of each species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). The MBNMS and NMFS worked to craft a set of mitigation measures designed to minimize fireworks impacts on the marine environment, as well as to outline the locations, frequency, and conditions under which the MBNMS will authorize marine fireworks displays. These mitigation measures, which were successfully implemented under NMFS-issued ITAs from 2005–2011, include four broad approaches for managing fireworks displays:
• Establish a sanctuary-wide seasonal prohibition to safeguard pinniped reproductive periods. Fireworks events will not be authorized between March 1 and June 30 of any year, i.e., the primary reproductive season for pinnipeds.
• Establish four conditional display areas and prohibit displays along the remaining 95 percent of sanctuary coastal areas. Traditional display areas are located adjacent to urban centers where wildlife has often become habituated to frequent human disturbances. Remote areas and areas where professional fireworks have not traditionally been conducted will not be considered for fireworks approval. The conditional display areas (described previously in this document) are located at Half Moon Bay, the Santa Cruz/Soquel area, the northeastern Monterey Peninsula, and Cambria (Santa Rosa Creek).
• Create a per-annum limit on the number of displays allowed in each display area. If properly managed, a limited number of fireworks displays conducted in areas already heavily impacted by human activity can occur with sufficient safeguards to prevent any long-term or chronic impacts upon local natural resources. There is a per-annum limit of 20 displays along the entire sanctuary coastline in order to prevent cumulative negative environmental effects from fireworks proliferation. Additionally, displays will be authorized at a frequency equal to or less than one every 2 months in each area.
• Retain authorization requirements and general and special restrictions for each event. Fireworks displays will not exceed 30 minutes with the exception of two longer displays per year that will not exceed 1 hour. Standard requirements include the use of a ramp-up period, wherein salutes are not allowed in the first 5 minutes of the display; the removal of plastic and aluminum labels and wrappings; and post-show reporting and cleanup. The sanctuary will continue to assess displays and restrict the number of aerial salute effects on a case-by-case basis, and will implement general and special restrictions unique to each fireworks event as necessary.
These measures are designed to prevent an incremental proliferation of fireworks displays and disturbance throughout the sanctuary and minimize area of impact by confining displays to primary traditional use areas. They also effectively remove fireworks impacts from 95 percent of the sanctuary's coastal areas, place an annual quota and multiple conditions on the displays authorized within the remaining 5 percent of the coast, and impose a sanctuary-wide seasonal prohibition on all fireworks displays. These measures were developed in order to assure that protected species and habitats are not jeopardized by fireworks activities. They have been well received by local fireworks sponsors who have pledged their cooperation in protecting sanctuary resources.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures and their efficacy over the past 6 years of authorizing fireworks, NMFS has determined that these mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101 (a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area.
In order to increase the long-term understanding of the effects of fireworks displays on pinnipeds, described previously in Summary of Previous Monitoring, as well as to estimate levels
MBNMS must submit a draft annual monitoring report to NMFS within 60 days after the conclusion of the calendar year. MBNMS must submit a final annual monitoring report to the NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final report. In addition, the MBNMS will continue to make its information available to other marine mammal researchers upon request.
This final rule governing the take of marine mammals incidental to the specified activities at MBNMS contains an adaptive management component. In accordance with 50 CFR 216.105(c), these regulations are based on the best available information. As new information is developed, through monitoring, reporting, or research, the regulations may be modified, in whole or in part, after notice and opportunity for public review. The use of adaptive management will allow NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or deletions) if new data suggest that such modifications are appropriate.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data:
• Results from MBNMS's monitoring from the previous year;
• Results from general marine mammal research; or
• Any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
If, during the effective dates of the regulations, new information is presented from monitoring, reporting, or research, these regulations may be modified, in whole or in part, after notice and opportunity of public review, as allowed for in 50 CFR 216.105(c). In addition, LOAs will be withdrawn or suspended if, after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Assistant Administrator finds, among other things, that the regulations are not being substantially complied with or that the taking allowed is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock, as allowed for in 50 CFR 216.106(e). That is, should substantial changes in marine mammal populations in the project area occur or monitoring and reporting show that MBNMS actions are having more than a negligible impact on marine mammals, then NMFS reserves the right to modify the regulations and/or withdraw or suspend the LOA after public review.
With respect to the activities described here, the MMPA defines `harassment' as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious injury or mortality, is considered remote. However, there is no specific information demonstrating that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures.
The two marine mammal species likely to be taken by Level B harassment incidental to fireworks displays authorized within the sanctuary are the California sea lion and the harbor seal, due to the temporary evacuation of usual and accustomed haul-out sites. Both of these species are protected under the MMPA, while neither is listed under the ESA. Numbers of animals that may be taken by Level B harassment are expected to vary due to factors such as tidal state, seasonality, shifting prey stocks, climatic phenomenon (such as El Niño events), and the number, timing, and location of future displays. The estimated take of sea lions and harbor seals was determined using the monitoring data from 2006–2011, presented earlier in this document, except as described in the footnotes to Table 2. Numbers of animals that are likely to be present were analyzed for the four prescribed areas described previously in this document: Half Moon Bay (HMB), Santa Cruz/Soquel (SC; including Capitola and Aptos), Monterey Bay (MB; including Pacific Grove), and Cambria (C). Please see Table 2 for more information. Table 2 of NMFS' proposed rule (77 FR 19976; April 3, 2012) contained several errors; those errors are corrected here.
At all four designated display sites combined, twenty fireworks events per year could likely disturb an estimated maximum total of 4,219 California sea lions out of a total estimated population of 238,000. This number is small relative to the population size (1.8 percent). For harbor seals, an estimated maximum of 230 animals out of a total estimated population of 34,233 could be disturbed within the sanctuary as a result of twenty fireworks events per year at all four designated display sites combined. These numbers are small relative to the population size (0.7 percent).
With the incorporation of mitigation measures described previously in this document, only Level B incidental harassment associated with authorized coastal fireworks displays is likely to occur, and these events are unlikely to result in any detectable impact on marine mammal species or stocks or their habitats.
NMFS has defined `negligible impact' in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * *an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the take occurs.
Past monitoring by the MBNMS has identified only a short-term behavioral disturbance of animals by fireworks displays, with the primary causes of disturbance being sound effects and light flashes from exploding fireworks. Additionally, a VAFB study of the effects of rocket-launch noise, which is more intense than fireworks noise, on California sea lions and harbor seals indicated only short-term behavioral impacts. With the mitigation measures described herein, any takes would be limited to the temporary incidental harassment of California sea lions and harbor seals due to evacuation of usual and accustomed haul-out sites for as little as 15 minutes and as much as 15 hours following any fireworks event. Most animals depart affected haul-out areas at the beginning of the display and return to previous levels of abundance within 4 to 15 hours following the event. This information is based on observations made by sanctuary staff over an 8-year period (1993–2001), in-depth surveys conducted in 2001 and 2007, and pre- and post-event monitoring conducted under MMPA authorizations from 2005–2011. Empirical observations have focused on impacts to water quality and selected marine mammals in the vicinity of the displays.
NMFS has determined that the fireworks displays will result in no more than Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions and harbor seals. The effects of coastal fireworks displays are typically limited to short term and localized changes in behavior, including temporary departures from haul-outs to avoid the sight and sound of commercial fireworks. Fireworks displays are limited in duration by MBNMS authorization requirements and will not occur on consecutive days at any fireworks site in the sanctuary. MBNMS' mitigation measures—implemented as a component of NMFS' incidental take authorizations since 2005—will further reduce potential impacts. As described previously, these measures ensure that authorized fireworks displays avoid times of importance for breeding, as well as limiting displays to the 5 percent of sanctuary coastline that is already heavily used by humans, and generally limiting the overall amount and intensity of activity. No take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated, and takes by Level B harassment will be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described previously in this document.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that MBNMS' authorization of coastal fireworks displays will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking from coastal fireworks displays will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
As mentioned earlier, the Steller sea lion and several species of ESA-listed cetaceans may be present at MBNMS at different times of the year and could potentially swim through the fireworks impact area during a display. In a 2001 consultation with MBNMS, NMFS concluded that this action is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction. There is no designated critical habitat in the area. This action will not have effects beyond those analyzed in that consultation.
The USFWS is responsible for regulating incidental take of the southern sea otter. The MBNMS consulted with the USFWS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA regarding impacts to that species. The USFWS issued a biological opinion on June 22, 2005, which concluded that the authorization of fireworks displays is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species within the sanctuary or to destroy or adversely modify any listed critical habitat. The USFWS further found that
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
At the proposed rule stage, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. MBNMS is a component of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries within NOAA, which is a federal agency. Because this rule impacts only the activities of MBNMS, which is not considered to be a small entity within SBA's definition, the Chief Counsel for Regulation certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the provisions of the PRA. These requirements have been approved by OMB under control number 0648–0151 and include applications for regulations, subsequent LOAs, and reports. Send comments regarding any aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and the OMB Desk Officer (see
Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) and those persons it authorizes to display fireworks within the MBNMS for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area described in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to authorization of commercial fireworks displays.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by MBNMS may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs in waters of the MBNMS.
Regulations in this subpart are effective from June 28, 2012, through June 28, 2017.
(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 217.17 of this chapter, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter “MBNMS”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.11(b) of this chapter, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
(b) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activities identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter is limited to the following species and is limited to Level B Harassment:
(1) Harbor seal (
(2) California sea lion (
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 217.11 of this chapter and authorized by a LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.17 of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities described in § 217.11 of this chapter may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 217.13(b) of this chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in § 217.13(b) of this chapter other than by incidental, unintentional Level B harassment;
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in § 217.13(b) of this chapter if such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or a LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.17 of this chapter.
(a) The activity identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter must be conducted in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent practicable, adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitats. When conducting the activities identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.17 of this chapter must be implemented. These mitigation measures include but are not limited to:
(1) Limiting the location of the authorized fireworks displays to the four specifically designated areas at Half Moon Bay, the Santa Cruz/Soquel area, the northeastern Monterey Breakwater, and Cambria (Santa Rosa Creek);
(2) Limiting the frequency of authorized fireworks displays to no more than twenty total displays per year and no more than one fireworks display every 2 months in each of the four prescribed areas;
(3) Limiting the duration of authorized individual fireworks displays to no longer than 30 minutes each, with the exception of two longer shows not to exceed 1 hour;
(4) Prohibiting fireworks displays at MBNMS between March 1 and June 30 of any year; and
(5) Continuing to implement authorization requirements and general and special restrictions for each event, as determined by MBNMS. Standard requirements include, but are not limited to, the use of a ramp-up period, wherein salutes are not allowed in the first 5 minutes of the display; the removal of plastic and aluminum labels and wrappings; and post-show reporting and cleanup. MBNMS shall continue to assess displays and restrict the number of aerial salute effects on a case-by-case basis, and shall implement general and special restrictions unique to each fireworks event as necessary.
(b) The mitigation measures that the individuals conducting the fireworks are responsible for will be included as a requirement in fireworks display authorizations issued by MBNMS to the individual entities.
(a) MBNMS is responsible for ensuring that all monitoring required under a LOA is conducted appropriately, including, but not limited to:
(1) A census of all pinnipeds in the impact area on the day prior to all displays, with observations to occur for no less than 30 minutes, and
(2) Reporting to NMFS of all marine mammal injury, serious injury, or mortality observed in the vicinity of the display area. Monitoring for injury, serious injury, or mortality shall occur no later than the morning after each fireworks display, and shall occur for no less than 30 minutes.
(b) Unless specified otherwise in the LOA, MBNMS must submit a draft annual monitoring report to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, no later than 60 days after the conclusion of each calendar year. This report must contain:
(1) An estimate of the number of marine mammals disturbed by the authorized activities,
(2) Results of the monitoring required in § 217.16(a) of this chapter, and any additional information required by the LOA. A final annual monitoring report must be submitted to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final annual monitoring report.
(c) A draft comprehensive monitoring report on all marine mammal monitoring conducted during the period of these regulations must be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS at least 120 days prior to expiration of these regulations. A final comprehensive monitoring report must be submitted to the NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final comprehensive monitoring report.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, MBNMS must apply for and obtain a LOA.
(b) A LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these regulations, MBNMS must apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, MBNMS must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.18 of this chapter.
(e) The LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of a LOA shall be published in the
(a) A LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.17 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in § 217.18(c)(1) of this chapter), and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in § 217.18(c)(1) of this chapter) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) A LOA issued under §§ 217.106 and 217.17 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management—NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with MBNMS regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:
(A) Results from MBNMS's monitoring from the previous year(s).
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies.
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in § 217.13(b) of this chapter, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notification would be published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure of incidental Longline category southern area fishery.
NMFS closes the incidental Longline category southern area fishery for large medium and giant Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) for the remainder of 2012. Fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT in the Longline category southern area is prohibited for the remainder of 2012. This action is being taken to prevent any further overharvest of the Longline category southern area BFT subquota.
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, May 29, 2012, through December 31, 2012.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978–281–9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971
Under § 635.27(a)(3), the total amount of large medium and giant BFT (measuring 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length (CFL) or greater) that may be caught incidentally and retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Longline category Atlantic Tunas permits is 8.1 percent of the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota. No more than 60 percent of the Longline category incidental BFT quota may be allocated for landing in the area south of 31°00' N. lat. (i.e., the “southern area”). The current Longline category baseline BFT quota is 74.8 mt, with 44.9 mt allocated to the southern area.
NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year, or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.
Based on the best available BFT landings information for the incidental Longline category southern area BFT fishery (i.e., 46.9 mt of the available 44.9 mt landed as of May 16, 2012), NMFS has determined that the Longline category southern area BFT subquota has been reached. Therefore, through December 31, 2012, landing large medium or giant BFT south of 31°00′ N. lat. by vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas Longline category must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on May 29, 2012. This action is taken consistent with the regulations at §§ 635.27(a)(3) and 635.28(a)(1). The intent of this closure is to prevent any further overharvest of the Longline category southern area BFT subquota.
NMFS will continue to monitor incidental Longline category BFT landings north of 31°00' N. lat. against the available Longline category northern area BFT subquota for the 2012 fishing year and may take further action, if necessary. Any subsequent adjustments to the Longline category fishery for 2012 would be published in the
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The closure of the Longline category southern area BFT fishery, i.e., prohibiting further BFT landings against the Longline category southern area is necessary to prevent any further overharvest of the 2012 Longline southern area BFT subquota. NMFS provides notification of closures by publishing the notice in the
These fisheries are currently underway, and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in excessive BFT landings, which could have adverse effects on the stock and/or may result in future potential quota reductions for the Longline category. NMFS must close the Longline category southern area fishery to landings before large medium and giant BFT further exceed the available subquota for that area. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under §§ 635.27(a)(3) and 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Notice of extension of public comment period.
This notice announces that the period for submitting comments on the Department of Energy's (DOE) request for information (RFI) issued as part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” is extended to June 19, 2012.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the RFI received no later than June 19, 2012.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, identified by “Regulatory Burden RFI,” by any of the following methods:
Daniel Cohen, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Email:
On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” to ensure that Federal regulations seek more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve policy goals, and that agencies give careful consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations. Additionally, the Executive Order directs agencies to consider how best to promote retrospective analyses of existing rules. To implement the Executive Order, DOE published a plan to periodically review existing regulations to determine which should be maintained, modified, strengthened, or repealed to increase the effectiveness and decrease the burdens of DOE's regulatory program. DOE's plan is available at
Pursuant to its plan to implement the Executive Order, DOE published an RFI on May 15, 2012 seeking additional public comment on how best to review its existing regulations and to identify whether any of its existing regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. (77 FR 28518) DOE sought comment on the RFI until May 29, 2012. DOE received a request from a member of the public to extend the comment period given the importance of many of the questions and issues raised in the RFI to the commenter. As a result, in this notice, DOE extends the reply comment period until June 19, 2012. DOE will consider any comments received by June 19, 2012.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega Bay, AK, to accommodate aircraft using new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega Bay, AK. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2012.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2011–1429; Airspace Docket No. 11–AAL–22, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4517.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2011–1429 and Airspace Docket No. 11–AAL–22) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega Bay, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega Bay, AK. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega Bay, AK.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2-mile radius of the Chenega Bay Airport, and that airspace beginning at the intersection of the 2-mile radius of the airport and 170° bearing of Chenega Bay Airport to lat. 60°02′17″ N., long. 147°39′07″ W.; to lat. 60°05′06″ N., long. 147°28′33″ W.; to lat. 60°11′41″ N., long. 147°37′16″ W.; thence to the intersection of the 2-mile radius of Chenega Bay Airport and 353° bearing of the airport.
Wage and Hour Division, Labor.
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The Department of Labor (Department or DOL) is withdrawing its proposed rule published on September 2, 2011, 76 FR 54836, which provided the public with notice of and the opportunity to submit written comments on its proposal to amend its
The proposed rule published on September 2, 2011 (76 FR 54836) is withdrawn as of May 29, 2012.
Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–0406 (this is not a toll free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693–0023. TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
On September 2, 2011, WHD published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 76 FR 54836, that proposed amendments to child labor regulations issued pursuant to the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(l), 212, 213, primarily to address the employment of children under 16 years of age in particularly hazardous agricultural occupations. The FLSA's child labor provisions do not apply to the employment of children working in agricultural industries once they reach the age of 16. The proposed amendments would have, among other things, amended existing hazardous occupation orders related to the agricultural employment of children under the age of 16 to address specific recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; created new agricultural hazardous occupation orders; and revised the agricultural student learner exemptions that permit the employment of 14- and 15-year-olds to perform certain hazardous agricultural work that they would otherwise be prohibited from performing because they are under the age of 16.
The FLSA exempts from the agricultural hazardous occupation orders and minimum age requirements children who are employed by their parent or person standing in the place of their parent on a farm owned or operated by the parent or such person.
The Department received over 10,000 written comments on the proposed rule and held a public hearing on the rule on October 14, 2011, in Tampa, Florida. To ensure that all who wished to comment on the rule had the opportunity to do so the Department extended the initial 60-day comment period for an additional 30 days, through December 1, 2011. As a result of the comments it received, on February 1, 2012, the Department announced that it would re-propose the parts of the child labor NPRM related to its interpretation of the agricultural parental exemption. On April 26, 2012, the Department announced its intent to withdraw the entire rulemaking, including the proposed regulations related to the parental exemption.
To protect the safety, health and welfare of children, the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2), gives the Secretary discretion to “find and declare[]” certain occupations to be “particularly hazardous,” for children under the age of 16. The FLSA's child labor provisions do not apply to children employed in agriculture who are 16 years of age and older. The Secretary has the same discretion to establish hazardous occupation orders in nonagricultural employment, but those orders apply to children who are 17 years of age and younger. 29 U.S.C. 203(l). The Secretary has used this discretionary authority to establish 17 hazardous occupation orders applicable to nonagricultural employment, and 11 hazardous orders applicable to agricultural employment.
The Department received over 10,000 comments on the proposed rule. Many of the comments were from parents who own or operate farms who believed that the Department's proposal would limit their ability to employ their own children on their farm and to provide their children with hands-on experiences in agricultural occupations. Further, many of the commenters maintained that the Department's proposed amendments interpreting the statutory parental exemption failed to recognize that many farms are no longer wholly owned by a parent or parents of the children employed on the farm and the proposed rule should allow for corporate and other types of ownership of farms by multiple members of an employed child's family. Other commenters, including 153 Members of the House of Representatives, 42 United States Senators, and a number of agricultural education instructors, emphasized the importance of preparing the next generation of farmers and ranchers. These individuals also stated that the Department's proposal to increase the rigor of the current student learner exemptions that allow 14- and 15-year-olds to be employed in certain occupations that the Secretary has declared are particularly hazardous for children under the age of 16, would unduly limit the work young children could be employed to perform on a farm and thereby limit their opportunity to learn about farming through hands-on experience and discourage them from entering the field of farming. The Department also received comments from members of Congress and the public that supported the Department's proposed amendment, citing to data demonstrating that the hazards on farms are significant.
On April 26, 2012, the Department issued a statement announcing that it would withdraw the proposed child labor rule. Acknowledging the thousands of comments the Department received that expressed concerns about the effect the commenters stated the rule would have on small family-owned farms and farming traditions, the Department stated that “[t]he Obama administration is firmly committed to promoting family farmers and respecting the rural way of life, especially the role that parents and other family members play in passing those traditions down through the generations.” The Department stated that its decision to withdraw, rather than re-propose or finalize the rule, was based on its “deep[] commit[ment] to listening and responding to what Americans across the country have to say about proposed rules and regulations.” The Department explained that rather than re-proposing the regulation, it intended to work to promote safer and healthier working practices and conditions for children employed as farm workers by collaborating with farming organizations such as the American Farm Bureau and Future Farmers of America to develop educational programs that address
In summary, the FLSA grants the Secretary of Labor exclusive authority to determine that a proposed rule should be withdrawn provided she publishes reasons for her decision not to promulgate the rule. This Notice explains the Secretary's reasons for pursuing a non-regulatory approach to addressing the safety and health of children employed in agriculture rather than amending the existing child labor rules. The FLSA affords the Secretary broad authority to set and order her rulemaking priorities. The Secretary properly exercised her discretion by determining not to proceed with the child labor rulemaking, particularly in light of the many comments informing the Secretary about the effect of the rule.
For the reasons stated herein, the proposed rule is withdrawn.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is considering amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to revise certain requirements applicable to the manufacture, use, and requalification of DOT specification cylinders. PHMSA is taking this action in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community and a review of the regulations applicable to compressed gas cylinders. PHMSA is not proposing specific amendments to the HMR; rather, we are seeking comment on the issues discussed in the ANPRM. While this ANPRM focuses on specific petitions for rulemaking and special permits, we will accept comments on the HMR applicable to compressed gas cylinders. These comments will be combined with a retrospective review of existing requirements aimed to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal existing rules that are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
Comments must be received by August 27, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number PHMSA–2011–0140 (HM–234) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin Leary or Robert Benedict, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, at (202) 366–8553.
PHMSA is considering amendments that would revise and clarify the HMR (49 CFR parts 171–180) applicable to cylinder manufacture, maintenance, and use. This action responds to ten petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community and seeks comment on incorporating the provisions of three special permits. These amendments would update and expand the use of currently authorized industry consensus standards, revise the construction, marking and testing requirements of DOT–4 series cylinders, clarify the filling requirements for cylinders, discuss the handling of cylinders used in fire suppression systems, and revise the requalification and condemnation requirements for cylinders. PHMSA will review comments on the amendments described in this ANPRM for their potential economic and safety implications and will use these comments to craft more specific proposals in any potential future rulemaking. PHMSA requests that commenters note the applicable petition when submitting comments.
PHMSA requests public comment on various petitions for rulemaking submitted in accordance with § 106.95 and DOT special permits PHMSA has issued applicable to the manufacture, use, and requalification of cylinders. PHMSA is publishing this ANPRM to obtain the views of those who are likely to be affected by the changes discussed, including those who are likely to benefit from and those who are potentially subject to additional regulation if PHMSA were to adopt the petitions. This ANPRM is intended to provide the
Access to Compressed Gas Association publications discussed in this ANPRM are available for public review at:
Federal hazardous material transportation law (Federal hazmat law), 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to regulate the manufacture and continuing qualification of packagings used to transport hazardous materials in commerce, or packagings certified under Federal hazmat law for the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. The HMR contain requirements for the manufacture, use, and requalification of cylinders subject to Federal hazmat law, including defining materials and methods of construction, the frequency and manner of inspection and testing, standards for cylinder rejection and condemnation, cylinder marking and recordkeeping, authorizations for packaging hazardous materials in cylinders, filling, loading, unloading, and carriage in transportation.
In accordance with 49 CFR 106.95, a person may petition PHMSA to add, amend or delete a regulation by filing a petition for rulemaking with all the information required in § 106.100. In this ANPRM, PHMSA seeks comment on ten petitions for rulemaking submitted by the compressed gas industry, including cylinder manufacturers, cylinder requalifiers, hazardous materials trainers, shippers, and carriers of compressed gases. These petitions are included in the docket for this proceeding. The following table provides a brief summary of the petitions addressed in this ANPRM and affected sections:
The National Technology Transfer
The CGA represents all facets of the compressed gas industry, including manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and transporters of gases, cryogenic liquids, and related products. The CGA submitted petition P–1499 requesting that PHMSA replace the currently-incorporated 7th edition of publication
This publication is available to view on the CGA Web site at:
The authorized materials, manufacturing methods and testing requirements for DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders (DOT–4 series cylinders) are specified in §§ 178.50, 178.51, 178.61, and 178.68. Specifically, these sections describe material types permitted to be used in construction, size specifications, cylinder wall thickness and required tests.
The CGA submitted petition P–1501 requesting that PHMSA revise the manufacturing requirements for DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders. According to the petition, the current DOT–4 series welded cylinder manufacturing requirements are unclear in some respects and result in interpretation by the manufacturers and enforcement personnel. A summary of the changes proposed by P–1501 are outlined below:
• Revise §§ 178.50(b), 178.51(b), 178.61(b), and 178.68(b) to ensure material compositions and the heat treatment are within the specified tolerances and of uniform quality as follows:
○ Require a record of intentionally-added alloying elements, and
○ Require materials manufactured outside of the United States to have a ladle analysis confirmed by a check analysis.
• Revise the pressure tests in §§ 178.50(i), 178.51(i), 178.61(i), and 178.68(h) to permit use of the volumetric expansion test, a hydrostatic proof pressure test or a pneumatic proof pressure test.
• Revise the physical and flattening tests
• Revise §§ 178.50(n), 178.51(n), and 178.61(o) to permit marking on the footring for cylinders with water capacities up to thirty pounds, rather than twenty-five pounds.
• Add requirements for the location of markings on DOT 4E cylinders in § 178.68.
The CGA states in its petition that the proposed changes do not present a significant economic impact to any single manufacturer or user, but will also enhance regulatory clarity, promote consistent manufacturing practices, and create greater uniformity between the specifications for DOT–4 series cylinders and the requirements for welded cylinders found in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 4706–1,
PHMSA identified six U.S. based manufacturers of these cylinders. PHMSA requests comments on the economic and safety implications of all the proposed changes in P–1501. PHMSA seeks comment on the potential burden (time and/or cost) for compliance with the information collection activities associated with the requirement to keep a record of intentionally-added alloying elements and to perform a ladle analysis confirmed by a check analysis for materials manufactured outside of the United States. In addition to the cost of keeping the records, PHMSA seeks comment on the cost to implement and conduct the ladle and check analyses, pressure test, and physical/flattening test.
PHMSA seeks comment on CGA's proposed changes to pressure tests in §§ 178.50(i), 178.51(i), 178.61(i), and 178.68(h). Specifically, we seek comment on safety precautions that should be taken to protect personnel when a pneumatic pressure test is authorized
The requirements for the requalification of DOT specification cylinders found in Part 180 Subpart C outline the specific procedures for the requalification and maintenance of cylinders. These requirements include definitions for terms used in the subpart, references to CGA publications for the visual inspection of cylinders, specific requirements for hydrostatically testing cylinders including methods to ensure the accuracy of test equipment.
PHMSA received petition P–1515 from Certified Training Company (CTC) proposing numerous revisions to the requirements for the requalification of DOT specification cylinders found in Part 180 Subpart C. The petitioner states that the requalification requirements in the HMR create confusion for requalifiers and enforcement officials. PHMSA requests comments on the need to revise these requirements and two possible methods of resolving the confusion with regard to the requalification requirements for specification cylinders. The first, as suggested by CTC in P–1515, would modify the specific HMR provisions in § 180.203 through § 180.215 for requalification of cylinders. The second would incorporate by reference CGA
CTC, in P–1515, requests that PHMSA revise the HMR as follows:
• Add the following terms and definitions to § 180.203:
○ “Accuracy” means the conformance of a particular reading to a known standard. Accuracy is expressed as the percentage of error of a reading from a true value.
○ “Accuracy grade” means the inherent quality of the device. It expresses the maximum error allowed
○ “Actual test pressure” means the pressure applied to a cylinder during requalification.
○ “Calibrated cylinder” means a cylinder that has certified calibration points of pressure with corresponding expansion values. It is a secondary, derived standard used for the verification and demonstration of test system accuracy and integrity.
○ “Master gauge” means a pressure indicating device that is used as a calibration standard, and has an inherent accuracy grade equal to or better than the requirement for the pressure indicating device in the test apparatus.
○ “Over-pressurized” means a condition in which the internal pressure applied to a cylinder has reached or exceeded the yield point of the cylinder.
○ “Percent permanent expansion” means the ratio of permanent expansion to total expansion, expressed as a percentage. The calculation for percent permanent expansion is permanent expansion divided by total expansion times 100.
○ “Reference gauge” means the pressure indicating device that is used in the daily verification of a proof test system, and has an inherent accuracy equal to or better than the requirement for the device to be checked.
○ “Service pressure” means the rated service pressure marked on the cylinder. The petitioner added this definition to differentiate the marked service pressure from the actual full pressure.
• Modify the definitions for the following terms used in § 180.203:
○ “Commercially free of corroding components” to also specify a moisture content less than 55 ppm.
○ “Defect” to mean an imperfection requiring a cylinder to be rejected.
○ “Test pressure” to state the minimum prescribed test pressure. This revision was suggested to differentiate test pressure from actual test pressure.
• Modify the requirements in § 180.205(f) (visual inspection) to permit the shot blasting
• Modify the requirements in § 180.205(g) (pressure test) to:
○ Clarify the pressure test procedure by:
Adding a requirement to isolate the cylinder undergoing the hydrostatic test from other sources of pressure that may influence the test results.
Separate requirements in § 180.205(g)(2) for pressure indicating devices (i.e. gauges) from expansion indicating devices (i.e. burettes, digital systems) and require periodic verification of these devices to confirm their accuracy.
○ Require a calibrated cylinder's markings to be checked and confirmed every five years.
○ Permit up to three repeat tests in the event of equipment malfunction and add a requirement to perform a system check at 90% of test pressure before repeating the pressure test.
○ Add a provision that would permit a cylinder that was over-pressurized (filled to a pressure greater than 10% of the test pressure) to continue in compressed gas service provided the cylinder's permanent expansion does not exceed
○ Permit cylinders that fail requalification to undergo repair and then attempt requalification a second time.
• Combine the condemnation requirements for DOT (found in § 180.205(i)) and UN cylinders (found in the applicable ISO Standard) under one uniform standard.
• Modify the requirements in § 180.209(b) (DOT 3A or 3AA cylinders) to revise the eligibility criteria for the use of the five-pointed star under § 180.209(b), which permits DOT 3A and DOT 3AA cylinders to be requalified every ten years instead of every five years. The current eligibility criteria for the use of the five-pointed star include that, (1) The cylinder was manufactured after December 31, 1945; (2) The cylinder is used exclusively for air; argon; cyclopropane; ethylene; helium; hydrogen; krypton; neon; nitrogen; nitrous oxide; oxygen; sulfur hexafluoride; xenon; chlorinated hydrocarbons, fluorinated hydrocarbons, liquefied hydrocarbons, and mixtures thereof that are commercially free from corroding components; permitted mixtures of these gases; and permitted mixtures of these gases with up to 30 percent by volume of carbon dioxide, provided the gas has a dew point at or below minus (52 °F) at 1 atmosphere; (3) Before each refill, the cylinder is removed from any cluster, bank, group, rack or vehicle and passes the hammer test specified in CGA Publication C–6; (4) The cylinder is dried immediately after hydrostatic testing to remove all traces of water; and (5) Each cylinder is stamped with a five-pointed star at least one-fourth of an inch high immediately following the test date. The petitioner's revisions to the eligibility criteria for the use of the five-pointed star include:
○ Remove the restriction that cylinders must be made after December 31, 1945 in order to be requalified every ten years;
○ Remove the hammer test, as some question the utility of such a test;
○ Add a requirement that the cylinder must have not more than 5% permanent expansion;
○ Add a requirement that cylinders must not exceed the elastic expansion rejection limit (REE); and
○ Add self-contained breathing apparatus to the list of prohibited uses, as underwater breathing is already prohibited.
• Require requalification markings to begin immediately to the right of the manufacturer's markings and subsequent markings to proceed in columns downward to the bottom of the shoulder area. Additional markings would proceed in a similar column format.
• Allow domestic requalifiers to stamp cylinders that do not conform to a DOT specification, special permit or authorized UN standard (i.e. foreign cylinders) with a requalifier identification number (RIN).
• Specify in § 180.209(e)
• Modify § 180.212 to permit grinding of DOT 3-series cylinders, provided the remaining wall thickness is measured by ultrasonic examination.
PHMSA is also considering incorporating into the HMR by reference, CGA
PHMSA identified 980 entities that conduct hydrostatic retesting. Incorporation of CGA C–1 would impose a one-time cost of between $102 and $186 per document depending on the document format (electronic or hard copy) and if the purchaser is a member of the CGA. PHMSA requests data on the impact of incorporating CGA
PHMSA requests comments on how these changes would potentially impact small entities. Finally, PHMSA seeks information on potential benefits of certain aspects of P–1515 including what benefits, if any, would be realized from permitting second requalification after failure, changing the five-year and ten-year requalification requirements, permitting the continued use of over-pressurized cylinders and allowing foreign cylinders to be stamped with a RIN.
For many years the HMR have permitted the use of a neckring marking, under certain conditions, in accordance with the CGA publication
The CGA petitioned PHMSA (P–1521) to modify the provision in § 172.400a(a)(1)(i) to remove the limitation that would only allow the use of the neckring markings if the cylinders are not overpacked. The petition would still require the overpack to display the 100 mm x 100 mm square-on-point labels in accordance with 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart E.
The marking prescribed in Appendix A to CGA publication C–7,
According to figures obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 86 entities are engaged in Industrial Gas Manufacturing of which 74 are classed as small entities (<500 employees). Other potentially impacted entities include medical equipment wholesalers, service establishment equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers and other miscellaneous durable goods merchant wholesalers. While firms in these industries total over 20,000, PHMSA expects that only a tiny fraction of these firms would be affected by CGA's proposed change. PHMSA seeks comment on the potential implications of this change. Specifically, PHMSA seeks comment as to whether this change is necessary and what, if any, safety and economic impacts would result. PHMSA seeks data concerning how many shipments the proposal would impact. Finally, PHMSA seeks information on how the increased flexibility of marking would economically affect shippers.
As specified in § 178.35(f), the HMR require DOT specification cylinders to be permanently marked with specific information including the DOT specification, the service pressure, a serial number, an inspector's mark, and the date manufacturing tests were completed. These marks provide vital information to fillers and uniquely identify the cylinder.
Liquefied gases are normally filled by weight. The tare weight and water capacity must be known by the filler to properly fill a cylinder by weight. However, the HMR do not require tare weight, mass weight, or water capacity markings on DOT specification cylinders. This information is essential for cylinders filled by weight, as cylinders overfilled with a liquefied gas can become liquid full as the ambient temperature increases. If temperatures continue to rise, pressure in the overfilled cylinder will rise disproportionately, potentially leading to leakage or a violent rupture of the cylinder after only a small rise in temperature.
To address this, the CGA submitted a petition (P–1540) requesting that PHMSA require tare weight or mass weight, and water capacity to be marked on newly constructed DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E specification cylinders. The petition also requests that PHMSA provide guidance on the accuracy of these markings and define the party responsible for applying the markings. In its petition, CGA notes that PHMSA incorporates by reference, the National Fire Protection Association's
The CGA petition states that accurate marking of cylinder tare weight, mass
In response to the petition, PHMSA is considering modifying § 178.35 to require all DOT specification cylinders suitable for the transport of liquefied gases, to be marked with the cylinder's tare weight and water capacity. This proposal would further align the marking requirements for DOT specification cylinders with the marking requirements for UN ISO Cylinders in § 178.71. However, we stress that while cylinder markings are important to ensure the safe filling of liquefied compressed gas they do not take the place of adequate personnel training, procedures to ensure proper filling, and continued requalification and maintenance of cylinders in preventing incidents.
PHMSA understands that many in the compressed gas industry, especially the liquefied petroleum gas industry, already request manufacturers mark cylinders with this additional information as an added safety measure. Based on this assumption, PHMSA estimates the impact on the compressed gas industry will be minimal as many in the industry are already voluntarily applying these markings. We request comment on this assertion.
PHMSA identified six U.S. based manufacturers of the cylinders identified in the petition. Five of these companies are classed as small businesses (<500 employees). PHMSA requests comments and supporting data regarding the increased safety benefits and the economic impact of this proposal. With regard to the cost associated with this modification, PHMSA has the following specific questions:
• What is the average total cost per cylinder to complete these markings (i.e. is an estimated cost of $0.10 per character for new markings accurate)?
• What is the estimated quantity of newly manufactured 4B, 4BA, 4BW and 4E cylinders each year? Furthermore, how many of these cylinders already display mass weight, tare weight and water capacity markings in compliance with the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code or other codes?
• How many manufacturers of the above-mentioned cylinders are considered small businesses by the Small Business Administration (SBA)?
PHMSA seeks to identify how often the mass weight, tare weight and water capacity markings are already permissively applied to cylinders and the costs associated with applying these marks. Finally, PHMSA is interested in identifying any relevant data about increased safety benefits associated with the additional markings and alternate methods/safeguards against overfilling of cylinders currently being implemented.
The Hazardous Materials Table in § 172.101 provides a shipping description for cylinders used as fire extinguishers (UN1044, fire extinguishers, 2.2) and references § 173.309 for exceptions and non-bulk packaging requirements. Fire extinguishers charged with a limited quantity of compressed gas are excepted from labeling and the specification packaging requirements if the cylinder is packaged and offered for transportation in accordance with § 173.309(a)(1) through § 173.309(a)(3). Additionally, fire extinguishers filled in accordance with the requirements of § 173.309 may use non-specification cylinders (i.e. cylinders not manufactured to specifications in Part 178). Part 180 also provides special requirements for cylinders used as fire extinguishers. Specifically, § 180.209(j) includes different requalification intervals for DOT specification cylinders used as fire extinguishers.
PHMSA has written several letters of clarification regarding the applicability of § 173.309 to fire extinguishers. Notably on March 9, 2005, PHMSA wrote a letter to Safecraft Safety Equipment, Ref. No. 04–0202, regarding non-specification stainless steel cylinders used as a component in a fire suppression system for installation in vehicles. In that letter, PHMSA stated that the cylinders used in the fire suppression system appeared to meet the requirements of § 173.309(a). PHMSA issued another letter on May 30, 2008 to Buckeye Fire Equipment, Ref. No. 06–0101 stating that the company could not use the shipping name “Fire extinguishers” for their cylinders that served as a component of a kitchen fire suppression system and must use the proper shipping name that best describes the material contained in the cylinder since these cylinders were not equipped to function as fire extinguishers. This latter clarification effectively required cylinders that are part of a fixed fire suppression system to meet an appropriate DOT specification.
In response to this letter, GSI Training Services submitted a petition for rulemaking (P–1546) requesting PHMSA allow cylinders that form a component of fire suppression systems to use the proper shipping name “Fire extinguishers” when offered for transportation. This petitioner states that at least one company manufactured over 39,000 non-specification cylinders for use in fire suppression systems based on the information provided in the March 9, 2005 letter and that the May 30, 2008 clarification effectively placed this company out of compliance. The petitioner further suggests that cylinders comprising a component of a fixed fire suppression system will provide an equal or greater level of safety than portable fire extinguishers since cylinders in fire suppression systems are typically installed in buildings where they are protected from damage and not handled on a regular basis.
In response to P–1546, PHMSA is considering modifying § 173.309 to state that the requirements applicable to fire extinguishers also apply to cylinders used as part of a fire suppression system. The controls outlined in § 173.309(a), including limits on the internal volume, the cylinder contents, the initial testing and subsequent retesting requirements, may provide an acceptable level of safety regardless of whether the cylinder is equipped for use as a fire extinguisher or is a component of a fixed fire suppression system.
According to figures obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 568 companies are engaged in heavy tank manufacturing that would include pressure vessels for fire suppression systems. Additionally, equipment wholesalers and retailers may benefit from this proposal. PHMSA is concerned with the specific safety impacts associated with providing an exception for the transport of compressed gases in non-DOT specification cylinders. In other words, are the requirements in § 173.309 appropriate for cylinders used in a fixed extinguishing system? PHMSA is interested in whether allowing non-specification cylinders to utilize the fire extinguisher exception would result in a cost saving and if so how much? Finally, PHMSA is interested in other safety standards that apply to fire suppression systems and how those standards would influence transport safety.
Additional requirements for shipments of liquefied compressed gases in DOT specification cylinders are specified in § 173.304a. In § 173.304a(a)(2), a table provides the maximum filling densities and
Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (Air Products) submitted a petition for rulemaking (P–1560) requesting PHMSA revise § 173.304a(a)(2) to modify the maximum permitted filling densities for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide to include 70.3%, 73.2%, and 74.5% in DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AX, 3AAX, and 3T cylinders with marked service pressures of 2000, 2265, and 2400 psi respectively. Air Products stated in its petition that the proposed increase in the maximum permitted filling densities would yield various benefits including increased harmonization of compressed gas filling requirements with the UN Model Regulations, benefits to the carbonated beverage industry, decreased fuel costs associated with the transportation and delivery of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide and reduced administrative costs through the elimination of DOT SP–13599.
PHMSA has a high degree of confidence that the increased filling densities for these gases will not adversely impact safety and this action supports several PHMSA initiatives, including incorporating special permits into the HMR. Therefore, we are considering modifying the entries currently in the table in § 173.304a(a)(2) for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide to include the maximum filling densities listed in P–1560 and DOT SP–13599.
We note that the current HMR prescribe only one filling density for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (68%), while the UN Model Regulations prescribe two filling densities (68% and 76%) and incorporating the provisions of P–1560 would expand the list of allowable filling densities and permissible cylinder types beyond what is currently permitted in the UN Model Regulations. PHMSA requests comments on the safety and economic implications of permitting expanded maximum filling densities for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide gases. PHMSA seeks estimates on the number of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide cylinders currently in use that would be affected by this authorization. PHMSA also requests feedback on how these proposed changes would positively and negatively affect both holders of this special permit and non-holders. Specifically, PHMSA seeks data on the costs associated with the process of applying for and maintaining DOT SP–13599 that would be obviated by incorporating this special permit into the regulations.
In accordance with § 173.301(a)(9), specification 2P, 2Q, 3E, 3HT, spherical 4BA, 4D, 4DA, 4DS, and 39 cylinders must be packed in strong non-bulk outer packagings. This configuration meets the definition of a combination package as it is defined in § 171.8 of the HMR. The HMR require the outside of the combination packaging to be marked with an indication that the inner packagings conform to the prescribed specifications; however, the inner packagings do not have to be marked. Since these are combination packages and not overpacks, the HMR do not permit the use of the “OVERPACK” marking to comply with this requirement. In contrast to a combination package, each package in an overpack must bear the appropriate markings and labels. The overpack must also display these markings and labels unless they are visible through the overpack (§ 173.25(a)(2), (a)(4)). The absence of the “OVERPACK” marking on outside packages required by § 173.301(a)(9) removes the implication that each inner packaging (cylinders in this case) must meet the applicable marking and labeling requirements of Part 172.
PHMSA received a petition for rulemaking (P–1563) from the 3M Corporation addressing the regulatory confusion between marking requirements for overpacks in § 173.25 and outside packages for certain thin-walled cylinders specified in § 173.301(a)(9). The petitioner notes that the differing marking requirements in §§ 173.25 and 173.301(a)(9) create confusion and make training difficult. This petition requests PHMSA modify the HMR to permit materials packaged in accordance with § 173.301(a)(9), except aerosols “2P” and “2Q,” to display the OVERPACK marking described in § 173.25, in lieu of the current requirement for “an indication that the inner packaging conforms to prescribed specifications.”
The marking “Inner packages comply with prescribed specifications” for overpacks in § 173.25 was changed in 2004 to “OVERPACK” in an effort to better align with global overpack requirements. The petitioner states that prior to 2004 both the overpack requirements in § 173.25 and the requirement in § 173.301(a)(9) used very similar language intended to inform package handlers that although not visible, the inner packages contained specification packagings and these packagings conform to appropriate DOT or UN standards.
PHMSA recognizes that different marking requirements in § 173.301(a)(9) and § 173.25 may have caused confusion without enhancing safety. PHMSA is considering modifying § 173.301(a)(9) to specifically require the use of the “OVERPACK” marking for the specified cylinders. However, this change would mean that both the inner packaging (cylinder) and the overpack would have to display hazardous materials markings and labels in accordance with § 173.25, thereby creating an additional burden. To avoid this consequence, PHMSA is considering revising the exceptions for labeling in § 172.400a, to specify that labels are not required on cylinders packed in accordance with § 173.301(a)(9) provided the outer packaging is labeled as required by the subchapter. This modification would eliminate the confusion cited by the petitioner while excepting the inner packages from the marking and labeling requirements.
PHMSA requests comments on the potential consequences of these changes. Specifically, PHMSA seeks comment on whether others have experienced difficulty with the requirements of § 173.301(a)(9) and thus see the necessity for such a change. PHMSA also seeks information on the safety and economic impacts of this proposed modification, including the quantity of shipments per year this modification would impact.
Requirements for shipping MEGCs are specified in § 173.312. Specifically, § 173.312(b) details the filling requirements for MEGCs and states that a “MEGC may not be filled to a pressure greater than the lowest marked working pressure of any pressure receptacle [and a] MEGC may not be filled above its marked maximum permissible gross mass.” This requirement that each pressure receptacle contained in the MEGC may not be filled above the working pressure of the lowest marked working pressure of any pressure receptacle is clear for permanent (non-liquefied compressed) gases which are generally filled by pressure. However, § 173.312(b) does not contain a corresponding requirement addressing pressure receptacles containing a liquefied compressed gas which are most often filled by weight. This lack of specificity for MEGCs containing liquefied compressed gas has led to some confusion on the proper filling methods for such MEGCs.
Barlen and Associates, Inc. filed a petition for rulemaking (P–1572) requesting PHMSA explicitly state in § 173.312 that for liquefied compressed gases in MEGCs, the filling ratio of each pressure receptacle must not exceed the values contained in Packing Instruction P200 of the United Nations
PHMSA does not anticipate this provision will impose any new burden, as this proposal would only restate an important safety requirement already stated in § 173.304a for DOT cylinders and § 173.304b for UN pressure receptacles. However, PHMSA welcomes comments from affected entities on the safety and economic impacts of this proposal. PHMSA also seeks comment on whether others find the requirements of § 173.312(b) confusing and thus, see a need for more specific requirements as proposed in P–1572.
As provided by § 173.301(f), a cylinder filled with a compressed gas and offered for transportation “must be equipped with one or more [pressure relief devices (PRDs)] sized and selected as to type, location and quantity and tested in accordance with CGA [publication] S–1.1 [
In response to PHMSA's NPRM entitled “Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous Amendments” published in the
In P–1580, the petitioner proposes revising §§ 173.302(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2) to require that the burst pressure of a rupture disc coincide with CGA S–1.1 for DOT 39 cylinders offered for transportation after October 1, 2008, other DOT specification cylinders with the first requalification due after October 1, 2008, and UN pressure receptacles prior to initial use. Specifically, as prescribed in 4.2.2 of CGA S–1.1, the required burst pressure of the rupture disc “shall not exceed 80% of the minimum cylinder burst pressure and shall not be less than 105% of the cylinder test pressure.”
PHMSA notes that the HMR do not specify that the rated burst pressure on a rupture disc must be in accordance with CGA S–1.1, thus we do not see the need for the changes proposed in P–1580. However, PHMSA requests comments from the compressed gas industry regarding the potential discrepancy. We ask if others see this as a contradiction in the regulations in need of modification. Furthermore, if a change is deemed necessary, PHMSA requests comment concerning the safety and economic implications of such a revision.
The HMR includes many performance-oriented regulations, which provide the regulated community with flexibility in meeting safety requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be anticipated and built into the regulations. Special permits enable the hazardous materials industry to quickly, effectively and safely integrate new products and technologies into the production and transportation stream. Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary to issue variances—termed special permits—from the HMR only if a special permit provides for a safety level “at least equal to the safety level required under [Federal hazmat law/regulations] * * * or consistent with the public interest and [Federal hazmat law], if a required safety level does not exist.” 49 U.S.C. 5117(a)(1). Thus, special permits provide a mechanism for testing new technologies, promoting increased transportation efficiency and productivity, and ensuring global competitiveness. Within the DOT, PHMSA is primarily responsible for implementing the Federal hazmat law and issuing special permits.
PHMSA periodically conducts reviews of active special permits to identify variances that should be adopted into regulations for broader applicability. Converting these special permits into regulations reduces paperwork burdens and facilitates commerce while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. Additionally, adopting special permits as rules of general applicability provides wider access to the benefits and regulatory flexibility of the provisions granted in the special permits. Factors that influence whether a specific special permit is a candidate for regulatory action include: the safety record for transporting hazardous materials; transportation operations conducted under a special permit; the potential for broad application of a special permit; suitability of provisions in the special permit for incorporation into the HMR; rulemaking activity in related areas; and agency priorities.
In this ANPRM, PHMSA is considering incorporating three special permits relating to the transportation of compressed gases into the HMR. These special permits have a strong record of safety and incorporating them into the HMR will provide wider access to the benefits of their provisions, therefore fostering greater regulatory flexibility without compromising transportation safety.
Section 173.301(f)(2) of the HMR states that “a pressure relief device, when installed, must be in communication with the vapor space of a cylinder containing a Division 2.1 (flammable gas material).” Special Permit 13318 (SP–13318) authorizes the transportation in commerce of DOT specification 39 cylinders of 75 cubic inches or less volume, without the PRD in direct communication with the vapor space. A copy of this special permit can be viewed in the docket for this ANPRM. PHMSA is considering amending paragraph (f)(2) to state that this provision does not apply to cylinders of 75 cubic inches or less in volume filled with a liquefied petroleum gas or to cylinders installed with PRDs at both ends. This special permit was originally issued in 2003 subsequent to the publication of HM–
PHMSA is considering whether incorporating this special permit into the regulations is appropriate and seeks comment on the potential impacts of such incorporation.
Section 173.304a(a)(2) provides the maximum permitted filling densities for various gases for shipment of liquefied compressed gases, including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, in specification cylinders. Special permit (SP–13599) authorizes a higher permitted filling density for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. The specifics of this issue, including the expected costs and benefits of this revision, are discussed above in Section III. A. entitled Petitions for Rulemaking, under the heading P–1560.
As currently stated in § 171.23(a)(4), a cylinder not manufactured, inspected and tested in accordance with Part 178 that is filled for export must be equipped with a pressure relief device. PHMSA issued SP–12929 to authorize the transportation of non-DOT and non-UN specification (i.e. foreign manufactured cylinders) to be filled in the United States and transported for export, without the PRD, provided specific conditions are met. These conditions include requiring: (1) The cylinder to meet the maximum filling density and service pressure requirements prescribed in the HMR, (2) the shipping paper include the notation “DOT–SP 12929” and a certification that the cylinder was retested and refilled in accordance with the requirements for export in the HMR and (3) the emergency response information indicate that the cylinders are not fitted with PRDs. A copy of this special permit can be viewed in the docket for this ANPRM.
In this ANPRM, we are considering incorporating the provisions of SP–12929 into the HMR. We solicit comments on the impacts, if any that adopting these provisions would have on import and export shipments of cylinders.
This ANPRM is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.” Section 5117(a) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue a special permit exempting compliance with a regulation prescribed in §§ 5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 5112 “to a person transporting, or causing to be transported, hazardous material in a way that achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level required under [the Federal hazmat law], or consistent with the public interest * * * if a required safety level does not exist.” The issues described in this ANPRM respond to ten outstanding petitions for rulemaking and would incorporate into the HMR three special permits with an established history of safety.
This ANPRM is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ANPRM is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034].
Executive Order 13563 is “supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.” In addition, Executive Order 13563 specifically requires agencies to: (1) Involve the public in the regulatory process; (2) promote simplification and harmonization through interagency coordination; (3) “identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility;” (4) ensure the objectivity of any scientific or technological information used to support regulatory action; and (5) consider how to best promote retrospective analysis to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal existing rules that are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
PHMSA has involved the public in the regulatory process in a variety of ways. First, in this ANPRM, PHMSA is addressing issues identified for possible future rulemaking in letters of interpretation and other correspondence submitted to PHMSA by the regulated community and other stakeholders. Overall, the issues discussed in this ANPRM promote the continued safe transportation of hazardous materials while producing a net benefit. PHMSA is responding to ten petitions for rulemaking submitted by the compressed gas industry in accordance with 49 CFR 106.95 and is considering incorporating the provisions of three special permits.
These petitions clarify the existing regulatory text in the HMR, incorporate widely-used industry publications and address specific safety concerns, thus enhancing the safe transportation of compressed gases while limiting the impact on the regulated community. Incorporating the provisions of special permits into regulations with general applicability will provide shippers and carriers with additional flexibility to comply with established safety requirements, thereby reducing burdens and costs and increasing productivity.
PHMSA requests public comments and feedback on these issues to help inform its determination in how to address the issues presented in this ANPRM.
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. We invite state and local governments with an interest in the issues presented in this ANPRM to comment on the effect that adoption of specific proposals may have on state or local governments.
This ANPRM was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”. Because this ANPRM does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required. We invite Indian tribal governments to provide comments on the effect that adoption of specific proposals may have on Indian communities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This ANPRM does not impose new information collection requirements. Depending on the results of our request for comments to this ANPRM, a decrease may result in the annual burden and costs under OMB proposed changes to incorporate provisions contained in certain widely used or longstanding special permits that have an established safety record.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these requirements for approval under this ANPRM.
Address written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the
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 may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
This ANPRM 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. Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, PHMSA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions that significantly affect the quality of the
This ANPRM responds to ten petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community and seeks comment on incorporating the provisions of three special permits. These issues discussed in this ANPRM would, if eventually adopted, update and expand the use of currently authorized industry consensus standards, revise the construction, marking and testing requirements of DOT–4 series cylinders, clarify the filling requirements for cylinders, discuss the handling of cylinders used in fire suppression systems, and revise the requalification and condemnation requirements for cylinders.
Amendments to the HMR discussed in this ANPRM:
• Replace the currently incorporated 7th edition of the Compressed Gas Association's (CGA) publication
• Revise the manufacturing requirements for certain DOT–4 series cylinders.
• Revise the requirements for the requalification of DOT specification cylinders by the volumetric expansion method found in Part 180 Subpart C.
• Allow the use of the labels described in the 8th edition of CGA's publication C–7
• Require manufacturers to mark newly-manufactured cylinders suitable for the transport of liquefied compressed gas to be marked with the mass weight, tare weight and water capacity.
• Allow non-specification cylinders used in a fixed fire suppression system to be transported under the same exceptions as those provided for fire extinguishers.
• Increase maximum allowable filling density for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide consistent with the UN Model Regulations.
• Permit use of the OVERPACK marking for cylinders packed in accordance with § 173.301(a)(9).
• Clarify filling limits for a liquefied compressed gas in a manifold or a multiple element gas container (MEGC).
• Harmonize the pressure relief device tolerances for DOT 39 cylinders transporting oxidizing gases by aircraft with the 12th edition of CGA's publication
• Incorporate into the HMR the requirements of DOT Special Permit (SP) 13318 that authorizes DOT specification 39 cylinders of 75 cubic inches or less volume to be transported without the pressure relief device being in direct communication with the vapor space of the cylinders.
• Clarify the requirements for filling non-specification cylinders for export or for use on board a vessel.
Alternative (1): Do nothing
Our goal is to update, clarify and provide relief from certain existing regulatory requirements to promote safer transportation practices, eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements, and facilitate international commerce. We rejected the do-nothing alternative.
Alternative (2): Publish an ANPRM seeking public comment on the issues raised in 10 petitions for rulemaking and the incorporation of 3 special permits. Subsequently, review the comments received on the amendments described in this ANPRM and their potential economic and safety implications. If deemed necessary, PHMSA will use these comments to craft more specific proposals which will be published in a notice of proposed rulemaking. This is the selected alternative.
Hazardous materials are substances that may pose a threat to public safety or the environment during transportation because of their physical, chemical, or nuclear properties. The hazardous materials regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention oriented and focused on identifying a safety hazard and reducing the probability and quantity of a hazardous material release. Hazardous materials are categorized by hazard analysis and experience into hazard classes and packing groups. The regulations require each shipper to classify a material in accordance with these hazard classes and packing groups. The process of classifying a hazardous material is itself a form of hazard analysis. Further, the regulations require the shipper to communicate a material's hazards through use of the hazard class, packing group, and proper shipping name on the shipping paper and the use of labels on packages and placards on transport vehicles. Thus, the shipping paper, labels, and placards communicate the most significant findings of the shipper's hazard analysis. A hazardous material is assigned to one of three packing groups based upon its degree of hazard, from a high hazard, Packing Group I to a low hazard, Packing Group III material. The quality, damage resistance, and performance standards of the packaging in each packing group are appropriate for the hazards of the material transported.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials are transported by aircraft, vessel, rail, and highway. The potential for environmental damage or contamination exists when packages of hazardous materials are involved in accidents or en route incidents resulting from cargo shifts, valve failures, package failures, loading, unloading, collisions, handling problems, or deliberate sabotage. The release of hazardous materials can cause the loss of ecological resources (e.g. wildlife habitats) and the contamination of air, aquatic environments, and soil. Contamination of soil can lead to the contamination of ground water. Compliance with the HMR substantially reduces the possibility of accidental release of hazardous materials. It is anticipated that the petitions and special permits discussed in this ANPRM, if adopted in a future rulemaking, would have minimal, if any, environmental consequences. PHMSA will more thoroughly examine the extent of the environmental impacts of the petitions and special permits discussed in this ANPRM should these issues be proposed in a future rulemaking.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
National Institute of Standards and Technology;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
PHMSA has conducted a technical review of the amendments discussed in this ANPRM and determined that the amendments considered would provide protection against overfilling and where a proposal would remove restrictions these revisions are based on sound
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
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. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do not operate in a manner that excludes 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 notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the American public, and has assessed the effects of this ANPRM to ensure that it does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, this ANPRM is not considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is considering the inclusion of Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks in an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan that is currently under development. This amendment process began in October 2011 to address the results of recent stock assessments for scalloped hammerhead, dusky, sandbar, and blacknose sharks. A new stock assessment is ongoing for Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks, and is expected to be complete and available before the amendment process is completed. Therefore, we are considering including Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks in the amendment to ensure any changes in the shark fisheries as a result of recent stock assessments are considered at the same time for public clarity and for administrative efficiency.
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time, on June 21, 2012.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2011–0229, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Peter Cooper at (301) 427–8503, or online at
The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
The National Marine Fisheries Service published a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act to amend the fishery management plan on October 7, 2011(76 FR 62331). This amendment is designed to rebuild and/or end overfishing on several shark stocks that were determined to be overfished and/or have overfishing occurring. We anticipate completing this amendment and any related documents in April 2013.
In December 2011, the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review 29 stock assessment process for Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks began. This process has included, among other things, a data and assessment workshop along with two assessment webinars that have been open to the public to attend. A third assessment webinar is expected in late May. According to the schedule of events for the assessment, the assessment should be completed in August 2012.
Therefore, we are expecting the final assessment results in early Fall 2012. Because final results of the assessment would be available in the Fall before the amendment is finalized in April 2013, we are considering adding Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks to the amendment. We believe that this addition would facilitate administrative efficiency by optimizing our resources, and would allow us to address new scientific information in the most timely manner. This addition would also provide better clarity to and understanding by the public regarding any possible impacts of the rulemaking on shark fisheries by combining potential management measures resulting from recent shark stock assessments into one rulemaking.
Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks are currently managed within the non-sandbar large coastal shark (LCS) complex and are caught in recreational and commercial fisheries targeting sharks. Commercial regulations for blacktip sharks include, but are not limited to, a trip limit of 33 non-sandbar LCS for directed shark permit holders and a trip limit of 3 non-sandbar LCS for incidental shark permit holders. Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks are part of the non-sandbar LCS annual Gulf of Mexico quota of 390.5 mt dw, which is adjusted each year for any overharvest from past fishing years. Recreational regulations for blacktip sharks include, but are not limited to, retention limit of 1 shark per vessel per trip with a 4.5-ft (54-in) fork length minimum size.
We may consider adjusting or implementing management measures for Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks in this amendment based on the results of the current stock assessment. These measures for Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks could include, but are not limited to, implementing a specific commercial quota outside of the non-sandbar LCS quota, modifying commercial trip limits, and adjusting recreational retention limits.
We request comments regarding the addition of Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks to the amendment. These comments will help determine if we should move forward with adding Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks to the amendment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that we have determined that it is necessary to immediately add to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual a treatment schedule for methyl bromide fumigation of cottonseed for the fungal plant pathogen
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 30, 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
Mr. Marc Phillips, Import Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2114.
The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are intended, among other things, to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into or within the United States. Under the regulations, certain plants, fruits, vegetables, and other articles must be treated before they may be moved into the United States or interstate. The phytosanitary treatments regulations contained in part 305 of 7 CFR chapter III (referred to below as the regulations) set out standards for treatments required in parts 301, 318, and 319 of 7 CFR chapter III for fruits, vegetables, and other articles.
In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that approved treatment schedules are set out in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.
• PPQ has determined that an approved treatment schedule is ineffective at neutralizing the targeted plant pest(s).
• PPQ has determined that, in order to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s), the treatment schedule must be administered using a different process than was previously used.
• PPQ has determined that a new treatment schedule is effective, based on efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in a commodity or commodities may be adversely impacted unless the new treatment schedule is approved for use.
• The use of a treatment schedule is no longer authorized by EPA or by any other Federal entity.
We have determined a new methyl bromide fumigation treatment schedule to neutralize the fungal pathogen
Certain strains of FOV are present in Australia and not in the United States—specifically FOV vegetative compatibility groups (VCG) 01111 and 01112. These strains are quarantine pests and could have significant impacts on U.S. cotton production. They are currently found only in Australia. Fumigation with methyl bromide was the only approved treatment for FOV VCG 01111 and 01112, so when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) canceled the tolerance for methyl bromide on cottonseed, trade ceased.
However, in a proposed rule published in the
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of § 305.3, we are adding the new methyl bromide fumigation treatment for cottonseed to the PPQ Treatment Manual as T301–e. This treatment schedule will be listed in a separate section of the PPQ Treatment Manual, which will indicate that T301–e was added through the immediate process described in paragraph (b) of § 305.3 and that it is subject to change or removal based on public comment. Although we expect that EPA will finalize the proposed rule to reinstate the tolerance soon, the tolerance is not currently established, meaning that this treatment schedule will not be authorized for use until the EPA proposal is finalized.
Our determination that the new treatment schedule T301–e is effective is presented in a treatment evaluation document we have prepared to support this action. The treatment evaluation document may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see
After reviewing the comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the new treatment schedule that is described in the treatment evaluation document in a subsequent notice, in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of § 305.3. If we do not receive any comments, or the comments we receive do not change our determination that the treatment is effective, we will affirm the treatment schedule's addition to the PPQ Treatment Manual and make available a new version of the PPQ Treatment Manual in which T301–e is listed in the main body of the PPQ Treatment Manual. If we receive comments that cause us to determine that T301–e needs to be changed or removed, we will make available a new version of the PPQ Treatment Manual that reflects changes to or the removal of T301–e.
7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Rocky Mountain Region, Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Meeting.
The Colorado Recreation Resource Advisory Committee will tentatively meet in Colorado Springs, CO. The purpose of the meeting is to continue to provide new members with the information they need to be effective committee members; to elect a Chair and Vice-Chair; and to review proposals for fee changes and new fee projects. These fee proposals will tentatively include two new cabin rentals, a new fee at the Buckeye Group Site, fee changes to Green Mountain Reservoir and the elimination of fees at Cataract Lake. There will also be an update of changes at the Mt. Evans fee site. Proposals can be found at
The meeting will be held June 12, 2012 from 9 a.m.–5 p.m. and June 13 from 8 a.m.–1:00 p.m. or when adjourned. This meeting will only be held if a quorum is present.
The meeting will be at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center, 314 West Bijou Street, Colorado Springs, CO in the Bordeaux Room. Send written comments to Rick Cooksey, Designated Federal Officer, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, WY 82070 or
Jane Leche, Colorado Recreation Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, at 303–275–5349 or
The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring recreation fee matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. A public input session will be provided and individuals who made written requests by May 29, 2012 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at the meeting.
Meeting agenda and status can be found at:
The Recreation RAC is authorized by the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in December 2004.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Katherine Russell, U.S. Census Bureau, CSD, 6K280A, Washington, DC 20233–6400, (301) 763–7094,
The Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2012 Survey of Business Owners and Self-Employed Persons (SBO). In the SBO, businesses are asked several questions about their business as well as several questions about the gender, ethnicity, race, and veteran status of the principal owner(s). This survey provides the only comprehensive, regularly collected source of information on the characteristics of U.S. businesses by ownership category, i.e., by gender, ethnicity, race, and veteran status. The survey is conducted as part of the economic census program. The economic census is required by law to be taken every 5 years under Title 13 of the United States Code, Sections 131, 193, and 224.
Businesses which reported any business activity on any one of the following Internal Revenue Service tax forms will be eligible for selection: 1040 (Schedule C), “Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship); 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income; 941, “Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return”; 944, “Employer's Annual Federal Tax Return”; or any one of the 1120 corporate tax forms.
The Survey of Business Owners was last conducted in 2007 as part of the 2007 Economic Census. The following changes have been made to the 2012 SBO:
• To reduce the SBO sample size, mailing and processing costs, and respondent burden, the Census Bureau is expanding its use of direct data substitution from existing data sources.
• Select businesses will be mailed the new 2012 SBO–2 short form with 39 fewer questions to answer than the 2012 SBO–1 long form.
• Spanish versions of the SBO–1 and the SBO–2 forms will be available upon request.
• The first eight questions from the 2007 SBO–1 form have been reorganized into three questions on the 2012 SBO–1 and SBO–2 forms to improve navigation through the form.
• The veteran question has been revised and expanded to collect information on whether the veteran was service-disabled, served on active duty or as a reservist during the survey year, served on active duty at any time, and served on active duty after September 11, 2001. The revised and expanded wording for the veteran categories and the collection of the additional service characteristics reflects input received during consultations with many leaders in the veteran community. Input was received from, among others, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Small Business Administration, the American Legion, VET-Force, and AMVETS.
• Interest from researchers on the possible correlation between intellectual
We received separate clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to test our proposed 2012 SBO questionnaire. We intend to conduct interviews with 83 businesses in three rounds. Cognitive interviews began in November 2011 and will continue through June 2012. Upon completion of each round of interviews, the interview team meets and decides on the recommended changes to the form. The form is revised after each round and the interview protocol is updated to reflect the new version of the form. The third round of testing is continuing as we submit this presubmission notice.
The Census Bureau will primarily use a mailout/mailback survey form to collect the data. Electronic reporting will be available for the return of both the SBO–1 and SBO–2 forms. The Spanish versions of these forms will only be available in paper format upon request. The questionnaires will be mailed from our National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Two mail follow-ups to nonrespondents will be conducted at approximately one-month intervals.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship will hold a meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 2012. The open meeting will be held from 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. and will be open to the public via conference call. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Council was chartered on November 10, 2009 to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matter related to innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States.
June 12, 2012.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Please specify if any specific requests for participation five business days in advance. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to complete.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the latest initiatives by the Administration and the Secretary of Commerce on the issues of innovation, entrepreneurship and commercialization. The meeting will also discuss efforts by the U.S. Department of Commerce around manufacturing, exports and investment. Specific topics for discussion include manufacturing, investment, exports, innovation commercialization, entrepreneurship, federal programs for commercialization and technology transfer. The final agenda will be posted on the U.S. Department of Commerce Web site at
Nish Acharya, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 7019, 1401 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–4068; fax: 202–273–4781. Please reference “NACIE June 12, 2012” in the subject line of your fax.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet June 12, 2012, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
2. Opening remarks by Bureau of Industry and Security.
3. Export Enforcement update.
4. Regulations update.
5. Working group reports.
6. Automated Export System (AES) update.
7. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public.
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 11, 2012, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department also received requests to revoke two antidumping duty orders in part.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty orders on 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (“HEDP”) from India for one exporter, and on certain steel threaded rod from the People's Republic of China with respect to one exporter.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after August 2011, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than April 30, 2013.
None.
None
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. Commercial Service is organizing a Trade Mission to South Africa and Zambia November 26—November 30, 2012, to help U.S. firms find business partners and sell equipment and services in Johannesburg and Cape Town, South Africa, and Lusaka, Zambia.
Targeted sectors are:
This mission will be led by a senior Department of Commerce official and will include business-to-business matchmaking with local companies, market briefings, and meetings with key government officials.
South Africa is a country of 50 million people that is rich in diverse cultures, people and natural heritage. Enjoying remarkable macroeconomic stability and a largely pro-business environment, South Africa is a logical and attractive choice for U.S. companies to enter Sub-Sahara Africa.
South Africa is the most advanced, broad-based industry and productive economy in Africa and in 2011 had a gross domestic product (GDP) of $42 billion, growing by 3.1 percent. In 2010 South Africa accounted for 31 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa's GDP.
South Africa is April 2011 joined Brazil, Russia, India and China as the only African country in the leading emerging market group, BRICS. This step was seen as significant endorsement by its peers of the country's macro-economic development since the establishment of democracy in 1994.
Zambia is a politically stable, multi-party democracy, rich in natural resources. Zambia has a population of approximately 13 million with a growing middle class, particularly in urban areas. Its relatively open economy has averaged more than six percent real GDP growth over the past eight years and was ranked one of the fastest growing economies in the world in a recent report by The Economist magazine.
In 2011, total U.S.-Zambia trade was $177 million, an 83 percent increase over 2010 levels and a more than 200 percent increase over 2009 levels. While relatively small in total, U.S.-Zambia trade has tremendous growth potential, and the Zambian government and private sector are keen to strengthen the commercial relationship between the United States and Zambia. Leading U.S. exports include machinery, transportation equipment, chemicals, and computers and electronic products.
Electricity supply constraints are expected to remain a feature of South Africa's social and economic landscape for several years to come, and the introduction of additional capacity will be required for at least the next 20 years.
South Africa presents potentially lucrative opportunities for U.S. firms involved in Green Building Technologies (GBT). By developed-economy standards, South Africa continues to lag far behind in its adoption of green building practices. However, the notion of green building is gathering momentum in South Africa with an array of projects currently in the pipeline.
Although no formal statistics are currently recorded for green building products in South Africa, the current building and construction materials market is estimated at about $11.88 billion per annum, with 60 percent sold direct to end-users and 40 percent via the distribution/merchant network. Of this total of $11.88 billion, $2.12 billion (18 percent) of materials would be used in the additions, alterations and home improvement market (including unrecorded home improvement).
South Africa's State-owned Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) plans to inject $1.68 billion into `green' industries over the next five years as part of a larger $14 billion disbursement plan between 2010 and 2015. The IDC indicated that the “green economy” has emerged as a primary focus for the development finance institution (DFI), owing to its potential to create jobs and lower the carbon intensity of the South African economy.
More than 45 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa's water resources pass through Zambia, creating significant untapped hydropower potential to meet domestic demand and for export to Eastern and Southern African countries. Zambia is connected to the Southern African Power Pool and has plans to connect to the East African Power Pool. Domestic demand often exceeds domestic production due to maintenance and upgrades at major hydropower facilities and brown outs are relatively common. In the past two years, ZESCO has raised electricity rates substantially to meet long-term cost recovery, although a planned further 20 percent increase in rates in early 2012 was shelved due to public opposition.
Specific opportunities for mission members include hydro generation, other renewable technologies, construction and engineering services in generation and transmission, and smart grid technologies. There is also a market for small-scale power generating equipment, such as micro-hydro power systems, mobile generation units, solar panels and diesel-powered generators for household or commercial use.
South Africa has by far the most modern, productive and diverse agricultural economy in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a net exporter of agricultural and food products and is self sufficient in food products. South Africa offers U.S. exporters of agricultural equipment and technology a wide range of opportunities. The country's annual agricultural equipment market is estimated at approximately $919 million. Five percent of all new agriculture equipment is being produced locally, ninety five percent of all agriculture equipment and parts are being sourced from international markets, and at least twenty percent of new equipment and technologies are currently being sourced from the United States.
Zambia has favorable climatic conditions, vast irrigation potential, good prospects for livestock production, and has one of the highest percentages of uncultivated arable land in Africa. Zambia exported approximately $500 million in agricultural products in 2010, and agriculture accounts for more than 20 percent of Zambia's GDP. The sector provides employment for about 60 percent of the population, the majority being small-scale or subsistence farmers, with about 750 large scale commercial farms and more than 1,000 emergent farms (up to 150 acres).
South Africa's government has announced and allocated initial funding for significant transportation infrastructure capital investments:
The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) of the South African Department of Transport (SADOT) has announced a large rail improvement program. The 20-year procurement process will be split into two, with the first ten-year contract running from 2015 and the second from 2025. The formal tender process started in March 2012 and financial closure with the successful bidder is expected in June 2013. The first train is to be delivered in 2015.
The South African Government will spend R21.3bn on infrastructure in the port of Durban over seven years, but this excludes more than R100bn that could be required to dig out the old Durban International Airport site and expand the harbor further. The sum of R21.3bn—a figure that may change as projects are reviewed or added over the next seven years—is part of the R300bn of transport and logistics projects that South African President Jacob Zuma mentioned in his state of the nation address in February 2012.
Zambia is landlocked and sparsely populated. As such, transportation is a substantial cost to doing business in the country. Goods move primarily by road and rail. Most copper, Zambia's primary export, is moved by truck. The Government has budgeted a record $890 million to road development and maintenance in 2012.
The government has at various times signaled its intention to expand Zambia's main international airports, and the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) funded an airports master plan that was completed in 2011 for international airports in Lusaka, Livingstone, Ndola, and Mfuwe.
South Africa—2,200 miles of railway line, three new ports and a large amount of bulk handling infrastructure at other ports are high on the agenda for both the South African Government and mining consortia.
Zambia is the largest copper producer in Africa and the eighth largest producer in the world. Zambia has more than 6 percent of known copper reserves, with about 42 percent of the country still unexplored for minerals. The sector has seen more than $5 billion in investment in the sector since the mines were privatized starting in 1998 and annual copper production is expected to top 1 million tons by 2015. The mining sector accounts for 6 percent of Zambia's GDP, and copper exports generate about 75 percent of export earnings. The sector continues to be the second largest formal employer, after government.
All mining companies are required by law to upgrade their mining equipment, particularly smelters, to conform Zambia's mining sector to international regulations and United Kingdom and U.S. environmental standards by 2015.
Zambia also has cobalt, gold, uranium, nickel, manganese, coal, and gemstones, and produces 20 percent of the world's emeralds.
The goal of the South Africa-Zambia Trade Mission is to provide U.S. participants with first-hand market information, and one-on-one meetings with business contacts, including potential agents, distributors and partners so they can position themselves to enter or expand their presence in the South African and Zambian markets.
The South Africa-Zambia Mission will visit Johannesburg, Cape Town and Lusaka, with an optional visit to Ndola in Zambia's Copper Belt, allowing participants to access the largest markets and business centers in the two countries. In each city, participants will meet with potential business contacts.
*
All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. The mission is designed for a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 20 to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies already doing business in the target markets as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter these markets for the first time are encouraged to apply.
After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a participation fee to the U.S. Department of Commerce is required. The participation fee for one representative is $4350 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
• Suitability of the company's products or services to the mission goals.
• Applicant's potential for business in South Africa and Zambia, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company size, sector or subsector, and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately, and conclude October 5, 2012. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning August 6, 2012, until the maximum of 20 participants is selected. Applications received after October 5, 2012, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Frank Spector, U.S. Commercial Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202–482–2054, Fax: 202–482–9000,
Larry Farris, Senior Commercial Officer, U.S. Consulate, Johannesburg, South Africa, Tel: +55–11 290–3316, Fax: +55–11 884–0538, Email:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 16, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the
Zev Primor or Robert Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4114 and (202) 482–3434, respectively.
On April 7, 2003, the Department published an AD order on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the PRC.
The following connector is excluded: A “joint block” for brake fluid tubes and is made of non-malleable cast iron to Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) automotive standard J431. The tubes have an inside diameter of 3.44 millimeters (0.1355 inches) and the inside diameters of the fluid flow channels of the connector are 3.2 millimeters (0.1260 inches) and 3.8 millimeters (0.1496 inches). The end of the tube is forced by pressure over the end of a flared opening in the connector also known as “flared joint.” The flared joint, once made fast, permits brake fluid to flow through channels that never exceed 3.8 millimeters (0.1496 inches) in diameter.
The products covered by the order are finished and unfinished non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings with an inside diameter ranging from
Fittings that are made out of ductile iron that have the same physical characteristics as the gray or cast iron fittings subject to the scope above or which have the same physical characteristics and are produced to ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM A–395 specifications, threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, regardless of metallurgical differences between gray and ductile iron, are also included in the scope of the order. These ductile fittings do not include grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Ductile cast iron fittings with mechanical joint ends (MJ), or push on ends (PO), or flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included. Additionally, certain brake fluid tube connectors are excluded from the scope of this order.
Imports of subject merchandise are currently classifiable in the Harmonized
The affirmative statement of no interest by Petitioners concerning certain brake fluid connectors, as described herein, constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of this order in part. No party commented on the
In this changed circumstances review, we have determined to revoke the order in part, retroactive to April 1, 2011, (the date following the last day of the most recently completed administrative review) for unliquidated entries in light of: (1) The submission by Petitioners; (2) the fact that entries after this date are not subject to a final determination by the Department; and (3) we have received no comments following our preliminary results of April 16, 2012, where we indicated that this changed circumstances review will apply retroactively. We hereby notify the public of our revocation in part with respect to a connector in the antidumping duty order on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the PRC retroactive to April 1, 2011.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, as applicable, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of a certain connector, made on or after April 1, 2011, meeting the specifications indicated above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This changed circumstances administrative review, partial revocation of the antidumping duty order and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b), (d) and 782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e) and 351.222(g).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 14, 2012, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.216(b) of the Department of Commerce's (the Department) regulations, Suruga USA Corp. (Suruga), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, filed a request for a changed-circumstances review of four types of stainless steel bar (SSBar)
On May 7, 2012, Suruga submitted revised product descriptions of SSBar that it seeks to exclude from the Order. The revised submission covers three products—one under Grade 304 and two under Grade 440C.
Therefore, in response to Suruga's request and based on the record evidence, we are notifying the public of our preliminary intent to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty order on SSBar from Japan with respect to the products described below and are inviting interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Jerrold Freeman or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0180 or (202) 482–1690, respectively.
The Department published the antidumping duty order on SSBar on February 21, 1995.
On May 7, 2012, Suruga submitted revised product descriptions which included one product under Grade 304 and two products under Grade 440C.
(1) The Grade 304 product has the following characteristics: round cross-section, cold finished, chrome plated (plating thickness 10 microns or greater), hardness of plating a minimum 750 HV on the Vickers Scale, maximum roundness deviation of 0.020 mm (based on circularity tolerance described in JIS B 0021 (1984)), in actual (measured) lengths from 2000 mm to 3005 mm, in nominal outside diameters ranging from 6 mm to 30 mm (diameter tolerance for any size from minus 0.010 mm to minus 0.053 mm). Tolerance can be defined as the specified permissible deviation from a specified nominal dimension; for example if the nominal outside diameter of the product entering is 6 mm, then the actual measured sizes should fall within 5.947 mm to 5.990 mm;
(2) The first Grade 440C product has the following characteristics: round cross-section, cold finished, heat treated through induction hardening, minimum Rockwell hardness of 56 Hardness of 56 HRC, maximum roundness deviation of 0.007 mm (based on circularity tolerance described in JIS B 0021 (1984)), in actual (measured) lengths from 500 mm to 3005 mm, in nominal outside diameters ranging from 3 mm to 38.10 mm (diameter tolerance for any size from 0.00 mm to minus 0.150 mm). Tolerance can be defined as the specified permissible deviation from a specified nominal dimension; for example if the nominal outside diameter of the product entering is 3 mm, then the actual measured sizes should fall within 2.850 mm to 3.000 mm;
(3) The second Grade 440C product has the following characteristics: round cross-section, cold finished, chrome plated (plating thickness 5 microns or greater), heat treated through induction hardening, minimum Rockwell Hardness of 56 HRC, maximum roundness deviation of 0.007 mm (based on circularity tolerance described in JIS B 0021 (1984)), in actual (measured) lengths from 2000 mm to 3005 mm, in nominal outside diameters ranging from 6 mm to 30 mm (diameter tolerance for any size from minus 0.004 mm to minus 0.020 mm). Tolerance can be defined as the specified permissible deviation from a specified nominal dimension; for example if the nominal outside diameter of the product entering is 6 mm, then the actual measured sizes should fall within 5.980 mm to 5.996 mm.
Suruga stated that parties comprising the majority of the U.S. industry have agreed to the exclusion of the aforementioned products based on changed circumstances.
On February 14, 2012, the petitioners submitted a letter attesting to their lack of interest in having the merchandise, as described above, continue to be subject to the Order.
The scope of the order covers SSBar. The term SSBar with respect to the order means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSBar includes cold-finished SSBars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-length flat-rolled products (
In addition, the term does not include certain valve/stem stainless steel round bar of 21–2N modified grade, having a diameter of 5.7 millimeters (with a tolerance of 0.025 millimeters), in length no greater than 15 meters, having a chemical composition consisting of a minimum of 0.50 percent and a maximum of 0.60 percent of carbon, a minimum of 7.50 percent and a maximum of 9.50 percent of manganese, a maximum of 0.25 percent of silicon, a maximum of 0.04 percent of phosphorus, a maximum of 0.03 percent of sulfur, a minimum of 20.0 percent and a maximum of 22.00 percent of chromium, a minimum of 2.00 percent and a maximum of 3.00 percent of nickel, a minimum of 0.20 percent and a maximum of 0.40 percent of nitrogen, a minimum of 0.85 percent of the combined content of carbon and nitrogen, and a balance minimum of iron, having a maximum core hardness of 385 HB and a maximum surface hardness of 425 HB, with a minimum hardness of 270 HB for annealed material.
The SSBar subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, and 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed-circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product (
In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, section 351.216(b), and section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations, the Department is initiating this changed-circumstances review and has determined that, pursuant to section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations, expedited action is warranted. We find that the petitioners' affirmative statement of no interest, and their certified statement that they produced virtually all the domestic like product, provide a reasonable basis for the Department's determination to conduct an expedited review. Based on the petitioners' expression of no interest and claims of accounting for virtually all of the domestic production of the domestic like product, and absent any evidence to the contrary, we also preliminarily determine that substantially all of the domestic producers of the domestic like product have no interest in the continued application of the Order as to the types of SSBar in question. Therefore, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke the Order in part. If we make a final determination to revoke the Order in part, this determination will apply to all unliquidated entries of the above-specified types of SSBar from Japan covered by the Order which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date determined by the Department.
Suruga requested that the Department revoke the Order in part retroactively to February 1, 2010, the beginning of the 2010 anniversary month of the Order. In the instant case, we have not completed an administrative review on the Order for the period February 1, 2010 through January 31, 2011. It is the Department's practice to revoke an order (in whole or in part) so that the effective date of revocation covers entries that have not been subject to a completed administrative review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties may comment on these preliminary results by submitting case briefs to the Department no later than 15 days after the publication of this notice in the
We will issue our final results in this changed-circumstances review as soon as practicable following the above comment period but not later than 270 days after the date on which we initiated the changed-circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and we will publish the results in the
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and sections 351.216, 351.221(b)(1), and 351.222 of the Department's regulations.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS), with support from the American Institute of Architects (
The mission will include stops in Chennai, Kolkata, and Bangalore, where participants will receive market briefings and participate in customized meetings with key officials and prospective partners. Trade mission participants will also have the option to have additional stops at Mumbai, Ahmedabad and New Delhi, where CS offices also can arrange meetings with both private sector developers and state and local government officials.
The mission supports President Obama's National Export Initiative (NEI) and his goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015 to strengthen the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness through meaningful job creation. The mission will help U.S. companies already doing business in India to increase their footprint and deepen their business interests.
The mission will help participating firms gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports of services to India. The mission will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint venture partners; meetings with state and local government officials and industry leaders; and networking events. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling to India on their own, will enhance the companies' ability to secure meetings in India.
India, one of the world's fastest growing economies, presents lucrative opportunities for U.S. companies that offer products and services that help to meet the nation's rapidly expanding infrastructure and housing needs. India is seeking to invest $1 trillion in its infrastructure during the 12th Five-Year Plan (2012–2017) and is seeking private sector participation to fund half of this massive expansion through the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. The rapid growth of the Indian economy (averaging 8 percent over the past 10 years) has created a pressing need for infrastructure development and the country requires significant outside expertise to meet its ambitious targets. U.S. industry is well qualified to supply the kinds of architectural services and project management skills needed to successfully tackle major initiatives, including such groundbreaking projects as the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) and the proposed 250-km Bangalore-Chennai expressway, to be built at a cumulative cost of $1 billion. U.S. technologies are also well positioned to contribute to energy production and greater efficiency in new industrial zones as they are built in India, which faces chronic energy challenges.
Major upcoming opportunities for U.S. firms include the seven technology townships associated with the development of the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC), the billion dollar Chennai-Bangalore expressway, municipal construction in several large cities, large educational and hospitality projects launched by the private sector as well as multi-use township and residential projects.
The Indian architecture/construction industry is an integral part of the economy and a conduit for a substantial part of its development investment. The profession and practice of architecture, design and project management in India has undergone a complete transformation in recent years. The booming economy and growing middle class has prompted developers to bring in foreign architects to design many projects, including airports, residential and commercial buildings, and resorts. Foreign architects have a proven track record and have helped bring about a transformation in the way projects are designed and built in India. Many foreign architecture firms have paired up with Indian firms who have the expertise on the ground to execute projects.
To explore these opportunities the trade mission will visit three cities as described below:
Chennai (also known as Madras) is the capital city of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Located on the Coromandel Coast off the Bay of Bengal, it is a major commercial, cultural, and educational center in south India and the port of Chennai is the second largest port in India. As of the 2011 census, the city had 4.68 million residents making it the sixth most populous city in India; the urban agglomeration, which comprises the city and its suburbs, was home to approximately 8.9 million people, making it the fourth most populous metropolitan area in the country. According to Forbes magazine, Chennai is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. It has a diversified economic base anchored by the automobile, software services, hardware manufacturing, and health care and financial services industries. According to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Chennai is estimated to grow to a $100–billion economy, 2.5 times its present size, by the year 2025.
Chennai firms are looking to American architects to learn the processes for executing world-class contemporary buildings. Chennai is experiencing a broad need for all building types, but corporate campuses, education, housing, infrastructure, and master-planning efforts are the most active development sectors. The Chennai realty market has been growing at over 8 percent a year and there are at least 675 real estate projects pending for approval with the local government and 43.5 million square feet area is awaiting development in Chennai. The residential real estate market in is expected to register strong growth in 2012, primarily on account of improvement in the information technology (IT) sector, and continued economic growth in the region. CS Chennai has supported the CII initiated Green building movement, with the U.S.
Kolkata (also known as Calcutta) is the capital of the Indian state of West Bengal and has a rich history spanning more than 300 years. Located on the east bank of the Hooghly River, it is the principal commercial, cultural, and educational centre of East India, while the Port of Kolkata is India's oldest port and the country's sole major river port.
The Kolkata metropolitan area (which is 1,480 sq. km, including its suburbs), is home to approximately 14.1 million people within three municipal corporations and 39 local municipalities, making it the third most populous metropolitan area of the country. As of 2008, Kolkata's economic output, as measured by gross domestic product, ranked third behind Mumbai and New Delhi. Kolkata underwent years of urban decay from the 1970s until the late 1990s. Since then, interest in the city picked up and a construction boom is now underway. High rise apartment buildings, resorts and commercial complexes are being developed all over the city. As a growing metropolitan city in a developing country, Kolkata faces urban challenges such as extremely high population density, high traffic density in low road space, several thousand heritage buildings in dire need of restoration, shortage of funds, socio-economic dislocations, and unregulated expansion of the city to accommodate growing population and pollution.
Opportunities have been created by the growing demand for high end residential and commercial buildings, new satellite townships, the growing economic power of the middle class population, exposure to modern city concepts from a globalized urban youth population and a vibrant real estate developer community. One of the largest projects is the construction of Rajarhat/New Town, an area that will ultimately cover as much as 50 sq km. In recent years, bids have generated participation by large Indian real estate firms such as Unitech and DLF, and by an international leader, EMAAR. Local architects and developers are seeking to attract foreign architects to get involved in high profile projects.
Bangalore (also known as Bengaluru), is the capital of the state of Karnataka. Located on the Deccan Plateau in the south-eastern part of Karnataka, and with an estimated population of 8.5 million in 2011, Bangalore is the third most populous city in India and the 28th largest in the world. Bangalore, most famously known as “India's Silicon Valley” is the hub for India's information technology sector. With the advent and growth of the ITES industry, as well as numerous industries in other sectors, and the onset of economic liberalization since the early 1990s, Bangalore has taken the lead in service-based industries, fuelling substantial growth of the city both economically and spatially.
Bangalore has become a cosmopolitan city attracting people and business alike, within and across nations. A large number of companies, domestic as well as multinationals, have opened their offices in the Silicon Valley of India. While the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) governs the growth process of the city, a majority of commercial developments in the city have been carried out by the private sector. The city is becoming a hub of people with high salaries leading to high disposable incomes, which has created a boom in real estate prices; prices grew 25 percent in the period 2011–12. The past year also saw a large number of residential project launches. There are many factors which are boosting demand. Realty experts are of the opinion that the large metro rail project now under construction will transform the real estate scenario in this city in next three years, similar to what happened in the national capital Delhi. Demand for back-offices and contact centers has resulted in continued strong growth in suburban real estate development, with leading IT companies continuing to set up new facilities in Bangalore.
The goals of the Architecture Services Trade Mission to India are to provide U.S. participants with first-hand market information, and one-on-one meetings with business contacts, including potential end users and partners, so that they can position themselves to enter or expand their presence in the Indian market. As such, the mission will focus on helping U.S. companies obtain market information, establish business and government contacts, solidify business strategies, and/or advance specific projects.
The mission will also facilitate first-hand market exposure and access to government decision makers and key private-sector industry contacts, including potential partners. It will provide opportunities for participants to have policy and regulatory framework discussions with Indian government officials and private sector representatives, in order to advance U.S. architectural interests in India.
The mission will start in Chennai with a welcome dinner on Sunday, October 14. The next day the participants will attend a round table industry seminar, industry briefing, site visits, lunch meeting with chamber/builders association and one-on-one business meetings. On Tuesday evening the delegates will reach Kolkata.
On Wednesday morning the delegates will start with a site visit. This will be followed by a briefing meeting, followed by one-on-one meetings. There will also be a meeting with the Government of West Bengal, which will be optional for the participating companies. At noon, there will be a networking luncheon with representatives from Indian architecture firms, project developers, and contracting engineers. After lunch the one-on-one meetings will continue followed by a networking reception. On Thursday morning the delegation will depart for Bangalore.
In Bangalore, the delegates will start with site visits and will also have the opportunity to meet and network with Bangalore-based architectural firms and Government regulators on Thursday. Friday morning will start with an expert briefing, followed by one-on-one business meetings. They will also have a networking lunch meeting with members of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association (CREDIA).
The participants will attend policy, market and commercial briefings by the U.S. Commercial Service and industry experts as well as networking events offering further opportunities to speak with government officials as well as potential distributors, agents, partners and end users. U.S. participants will be counseled before and after the mission by CS India staff. Participation in the mission will include the following:
• Pre-travel briefings on subjects from business practices in India to security;
• Pre-scheduled meetings with government officials, potential partners, distributors, agents, end users and local industry contacts in Chennai, Kolkata and Bangalore;
• Airport transfers in Chennai, Kolkata and Bangalore;
• Participation in networking receptions in Chennai, Kolkata and Bangalore; and participation in one-on-one business meetings with potential clients, partners and distributors in all three cities.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 25 participants will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the mission.
After a company or trade association has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the U.S. Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee is $4,735 for large firms and $4,575 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME).
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings), and air transportation from the U.S. to the mission sites and return to the U.S. Delegate members will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. Business visas may be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: reject the application, request additional information/clarification, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent
In addition, each applicant must:
• Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified to the Department of Commerce for its evaluation any business pending before the Department that may present the appearance of a conflict of interest;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and
• Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.
Targeted mission participants are U.S. companies and trade associations providing architectural services that have an interest in entering or expanding their business in the Indian market. The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of a company's (or in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') products or services to the Indian market.
• Company's (or in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') potential for business in India, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the applicant company's (or in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
• Current or pending major project participation.
• Rank/seniority of the designated company representative.
Additional factors, such as diversity of company size, type, location, and demographics, may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents, including the application, containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for this mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than August 24, 2012. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning June 4, 2012, until the maximum of 25 participants is selected. Applications received after August 24, 2012 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Arica Young, U.S. Commercial Service, Washington, DC, Tel: 202–482–2833, Email:
Sangeeta Taneja, U.S. Commercial Service, Ahmedabad, India, Tel: +91–79–2656–5216, Email:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jessica 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
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Darla Yonder, Management Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1710, telephone 301–975–4064 or via email to
In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, proposes to conduct a number of surveys—both quantitative and qualitative—designed to evaluate our current programs from a customer's perspective. NIST proposes to perform program evaluation data collections by means of, but not limited to, focus groups, reply cards that accompany product distributions, and Web-based surveys and dialogue boxes that offer customers the opportunity to express their views on the programs they are asked to evaluate. NIST will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary opinions and will not collect information that is required or regulated. Steps will be taken to assure anonymity of respondents in each activity covered under this request.
NIST will collect this information by mail, fax, electronically, telephone and person-to-person sessions.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Mark Baumgartner, Ph.D., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MS#33 Biology Department, Woods Hole, MA 02543, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on humpback whales (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before June 28, 2012.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: See
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Joselyd Garcia-Reyes or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427–8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a five-year permit to study the diving behavior and foraging ecology of baleen whales. The purposes of the research are to: (1) Characterize diving and foraging behavior in the context of the oceanographic and acoustic environment to support improved management of baleen whales, (2) elucidate day-night cycles of foraging behavior, (3) study the environmental factors that influence diving behavior of all demographic groups, and (4) identify preferred prey species, but also the oceanographic conditions that help to concentrate prey to develop a predictive model of baleen whale distribution. Research would occur in: The northwest Atlantic from Maine to Florida; Canadian waters of the Gulf of Maine, Labrador Sea, Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, and Hudson Bay; waters off the U.S. North Pacific (California to Washington); and the Arctic Ocean including Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The applicant requests takes of humpback, fin, blue, sei, bowhead, North Atlantic right and North Pacific right, and Eastern North Pacific gray whales. See the application for specific take numbers by location and species/stock. Activities would include vessel surveys for passive acoustic recording, dermal and suction cup tagging, behavioral observations, photo-id, and tracking.
A draft environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376;
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115–0700; phone (206) 526–6150; fax (206) 526–6426;
Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668; phone (907) 586–7221; fax (907) 586–7249;
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213; phone (562) 980–4001; fax (562) 980–4018;
Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281–9328; fax (978) 281–9394; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 824–5309.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC; Responsible Party: Frank Almeida), 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA, 02543 has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before June 28, 2012.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376;
Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281–9328; fax (978) 281–9394; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 824–5309.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division.
• By email to
• By facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or
• At the address listed above.
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Amy Hapeman or Kristy Beard, (301) 427–8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The NEFSC requests a five-year permit to continue sea turtle ecological research in the Western Atlantic (Florida Keys through Maine). Researchers would capture animals by hand, dip net, encircle net, hoop net, or obtain animals for research from other legal authorities. Sea turtles would have a combination of the following procedures performed: epibiota removal; collect tumors; count/survey; imaging; insert stomach telemeter pill; instrument attachment by drilling the carapace, epoxy or suction-cup; laparoscopy; gastric or cloacal lavage; temporary carapace mark; living, flipper, and passive integrated transponder tagging; measure; photograph/video; blood, fat, feces, scute, tissue, organ and muscle sample; nasal, cloacal, lesion, and oral swab; transport; ultrasound; weigh; tracking by vessel or remotely operated vehicle (ROV); observation by ROV; and recapture for gear removal. Up to one animal of each species could be unintentionally killed over the life of the permit. Researchers may also salvage carcass, tissue, and parts from dead animals encountered during surveys. Up to 541 loggerhead, 516 Kemp's ridley, 498 leatherback, 500 green, and 427 unidentified sea turtles would be taken annually.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Florida Sea Grant. If granted, the EFP would exempt Florida Sea Grant agents from regulations at § 622.41(m)(3), requiring the use of venting tools when releasing regulatory discarded fish back to the water from July 1, 2012, through July 1, 2013. This study, to be conducted in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) off Florida, is intended to better document the efficacy and practicality of various recompression gear methods.
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on June 28, 2012.
You may submit comments on the application by any of the following methods:
•
•
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses.
Rich Malinowski, 727–824–5305; email:
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The described research is part of a new research program by Florida Sea Grant. The research is intended to involve recreational fishermen in the collection of fundamental biological information of Gulf reef fish. The
NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. A report on the research would be due at the end of the collection period, to be submitted to NMFS and reviewed by the Council.
A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS's review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of loan repayment.
NMFS issues this notice to inform interested parties that the Oregon Pink Shrimp sub-loan in the fishing capacity reduction program for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery has been repaid. Therefore, buyback fee collections on Oregon pink shrimp will cease.
Comments must be submitted on or before 5 p.m. EST June 13, 2012.
Send comments about this notice to Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS, Attn: Oregon Pink Shrimp Buyback, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (see
Michael A. Sturtevant at (301) 427–8799, fax (301) 713–1306, or
On November 16, 2004, NMFS published a
The Oregon pink shrimp sub-loan of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Capacity Reduction (Buyback) loan in the amount of $2,228,844.53 has now been repaid in full. NMFS has received $3,253,336.34 to repay the principal and interest on this sub-loan since fee collection began September 8, 2005. Landings in the Oregon pink shrimp fishery increased in recent seasons, particularly in the 2011 season, which resulted in this sub-loan being repaid on or about May 17, 2012. As a result, buyback loan fees will no longer be collected in the Oregon pink shrimp fishery.
Based upon the best available data from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, landings after April 19, 2012, will not be subject to the buyback fee. Any funds submitted to NMFS for landings after this date will be refunded on a pro-rata basis to the fish buyers/processors. The fish buyers/processors should return excess fees collected to the harvesters, including buyback fees collected but not yet remitted to NMFS.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday June 29, 2012.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday, June 1, 2012.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday, June 8, 2012.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday June 15, 2012.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, Enforcement Matters and a Rule Enforcement Review. In the event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday June 22, 2012.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 12–21 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of 8 MH–60R SEAHAWK Multi-Mission Helicopters, 18 T–700 GE 401C Engines (16 installed and 2 spares), communication equipment, electronic warfare systems, support equipment, spare engine containers, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $1.0 billion.
The Government of the Republic of Korea is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in that region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our Korean ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability, which will contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
The proposed sale of the MH–60R SEAHAWK helicopter will improve South Korea's capability to meet current and future threats from enemy Anti-Surface Warfare (ASW) capabilities. The sale of these MH–60R helicopters will enhance interoperability with U.S. Naval forces, and add to the military stability of the region. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this system and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut; Lockheed Martin in Owego, New York; and General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts. There are no offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government or contractor representatives on a temporary basis for program and technical support, and management oversight.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The MH–60R SEAHAWK Multi-Mission Helicopter contains new generation technology. It is equipped for a range of missions including: anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), search and rescue (SAR), naval gunfire support, surveillance, communications relay, logistics support, personnel transfer, and vertical replenishment. The navigation suite includes an LN–100G dual embedded global positioning system and inertial navigation system. The helicopter is equipped with a fully digital communications suite with ARC–210 radios for Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency voice communications, and an L–3 Communications Ku-band Data Link. The helicopter is fitted with the AN/AAS–44 Multi-Spectral Targeting System (MTS), AN/ALQ–210 electronic support measures system (ESM), and AN/APS–153 Multi-Mode Radar (MMR). The electronic warfare systems include the AN/AAR–47 missile warning system, AN/ALQ–144 infrared jammer, Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) Mode-4 and AN/ALE–47 chaff and flare decoy dispenser. The MH–60R, including the mission equipment, is classified Secret.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons systems effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense Reserve Forces Policy Board.
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Defense announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, from 8:00 a.m.–3:40 p.m.
Meeting address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA. Mailing address is Reserve Forces Policy Board, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 601, Falls Church, VA 22041.
CDR Steven Knight, Designated Federal Officer, (703) 681–0608 (Voice), (703) 681–0002 (Facsimile),
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to Alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Air Force proposes to alter a system of records in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective on June 28, 2012 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Charles J. Shedrick, (202) 404–6575. Department of the Air Force Privacy Office, Air Force Privacy Act Office, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information officer, ATTN: SAF/CIO A6, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330–1800.
The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Inspector General Records (December 2, 2008, 73 FR 73252).
Delete entry and replace with “Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), case number, address, phone number, reports of investigations, statements of individuals, correspondence, and other information collected during investigation of and pertaining to complaints made to or investigated by the Air Force Inspector General.”
Delete entry and replace with “Retrieved by last name and either SSN or case number.”
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1033, the Secretary of the Navy, with the concurrence of the Department of Defense General Counsel, has authorized Vice Admiral W.D. French, Commander, Navy Installations Command, to serve without compensation on the Board of Directors of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.
Authorization to serve on the Board of Directors has been made for the purpose of providing oversight and advice to, and coordination with, the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society. Participation of the above official in the activities of the Society will not extend to participation in day-to-day operations.
Lieutenant Commander Mary Pohanka, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division, 703–614–6005.
10 U.S.C. 1033(c)
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary, into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The executive session of this meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on June 11, 2012, will include discussions of disciplinary matters, law enforcement investigations into allegations of criminal activity, and personnel issues at the Naval Academy, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, the executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public.
The open session of the meeting will be held on June 11, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The closed session of this meeting will be the executive session held from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Bo Coppege Room at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The meeting will be handicap accessible.
Lieutenant Commander Travis Haire, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402–5000, 410–293–1503.
This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive session of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on June 11, 2012, will consist of discussions of law enforcement investigations into allegations of criminal activity, new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and nonjudicial punishments involving the Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade, and personnel issues. The discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the executive session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be concerned with matters coming under sections 552b(c)(5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established to develop, maintain, and make accessible a system of high-quality reviews of studies of the effectiveness of education-related interventions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 30, 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 Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
State-Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) Pilot Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2012.
Specifically, the purposes of these grants are to (a) promote increased collaboration between TEAs and State educational agencies (SEAs) in the administration of certain State-administered formula grant programs, and (b) build the capacity of TEAs to conduct certain State-level administrative functions under those programs for eligible schools located on a reservation.
The most critical aspect of the STEP Pilot will be the strength of the collaborative agreement between the TEA and the SEA. The agreement must document the SEA's and the TEA's commitment to the pilot project and describe in detail what is to be accomplished during the project period (as defined in this notice). However, the Department recognizes that, given the complexities involved in developing such an agreement, the application period for the STEP Pilot grant program likely will not be long enough for TEAs and SEAs to complete a detailed collaborative agreement that adequately addresses each of the issues that need to be considered. Therefore, we are requiring an application for a STEP Pilot grant to include a written preliminary agreement between the participating SEA and the TEA under which the SEA and TEA agree to (a) work together toward the transfer of agreed-upon State-level ESEA formula grant administrative functions to the TEA over the course of the project, and (b) collaborate on activities that will enable the TEA to begin to carry out those functions by July 2, 2013. Within nine months from the start of the grant period, the TEA and SEA must enter into a final collaborative agreement that builds on the preliminary agreement and details the activities that the two agencies will carry out under the grant to enable the TEA to perform the agreed-upon State-level administrative functions by the end of the project period and beyond. Each TEA grantee must submit the final agreement to the Department by June 29, 2013. The Department's review of the final agreement will serve as one basis for continued funding in grant years two and three.
The Department expects that, during the first year of the STEP Pilot, the SEA will work with the TEA to prepare the TEA to perform the State-level administrative functions detailed in the preliminary agreement, so that by July 2, 2013, the TEA will begin to perform those functions. By the end of the project, the Department expects that each TEA grantee will be able to carry out selected State-level administrative functions under ESEA State-administered formula grant programs and that the TEA will have strengthened its relationship with the SEA, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools on a reservation in a manner that is sustainable and supports the TEA's efforts to improve educational services and outcomes for AI/AN students.
The Department will not grant formula funds to TEAs as a part of this pilot program. We cannot change the designated grantee, under an ESEA program, from an SEA to a different entity without a statutory change to the ESEA, and the FY 2012 Appropriations Act does not provide that authority. Grant funds awarded to successful applicants (as defined in this notice) will consist only of discretionary funds appropriated for this competition. SEAs that participate in a project under the pilot will continue to subgrant ESEA State-administered formula funds to LEAs that are eligible to receive them, including LEAs with schools participating in that project. SEAs will continue to have the responsibility to ensure subrecipient compliance with the applicable laws and regulations governing all ESEA State-administered formula grant programs. However, an SEA could, as part of its agreement with a TEA, provide a portion of the SEA's administrative set-aside funds under ESEA programs to a TEA in accordance with applicable State procurement law. The Department will continue to monitor the performance of the SEA as the agent required to comply with Federal law.
An applicant must submit a preliminary agreement between the TEA and the SEA with its application for funding. Letters of support from an SEA will not meet this requirement.
The preliminary agreement must include—
(a) A clear vision for how the SEA and TEA will work collaboratively to administer selected ESEA State-administered formula grant programs in eligible schools;
(b) A list of the ESEA State-administered formula programs for which the TEA will assume State-level administrative functions;
(c) A description of the State-level administrative functions the TEA will assume by July 2, 2013, and by the end of the project period;
(d) The capacity-building activities that both the TEA and the SEA will carry out before July 2, 2013, in order for the TEA to be ready to assume those functions;
(e) A description of the capacity-building (as defined in this notice) activities that the SEA will undertake to prepare the TEA to assume those functions, and of any assistance that the TEA will provide to the SEA to facilitate the project. This assistance may include, among other things, (1) Increasing the SEA's knowledge about the unique cultural and academic needs of AI/AN students enrolled in schools that will participate in the project, (2) addressing those needs more effectively, and (3) increasing the SEA's ability to work effectively with TEAs in a culturally competent manner (as defined in this notice);
(f) A list of the LEAs and eligible schools expected to participate in the project;
(g) The collaborative activities the SEA and TEA will undertake to produce a final agreement; and
(h) The activities the SEA and the TEA will undertake to engage LEAs' participation in the grant project.
By June 29, 2013, nine months after the start of the first grant period, each TEA grantee must submit to the Department a final agreement that builds on the preliminary agreement and details a feasible, sustainable plan for how the TEA and SEA will work together and in collaboration with affected LEAs to administer selected ESEA State-administered formula grant programs to children in public schools on reservations. The final agreement must—
(a) Expand and refine, as appropriate, the vision presented in the preliminary agreement for how the TEA and SEA will work together and in collaboration with the selected LEAs to administer ESEA formula grant programs in ways that (1) acknowledge and support the role of the tribe in educating its students, and (2) account for the responsibility of the SEA to ensure that LEAs are in compliance with the laws and regulations that govern the relevant formula grant programs.
(b) Make explicit what will be accomplished during the remainder of the project period in order to fully realize that vision, including by providing detailed descriptions of (1)
(c) Discuss the actions that the TEA and SEA will take to sustain the TEA's assumption of State-level responsibilities for the ESEA programs for the participating schools after the project ends.
(d) Include a list of the eligible schools that will participate in the second and third grant periods. The list may differ from the list of schools included in the preliminary agreement.
(e) Make explicit how the specific functions that the TEA will assume during the course of the grant will (1) align with and support Federal and State education priorities and initiatives to improve the education outcomes for all students and ensure that all students graduate high school college- and career-ready; and (2) address the unique educational and cultural needs of the students.
(f) Identify challenges (e.g., legislative constraints, State policy constraints, local school board rules, collective bargaining agreements) that may pose a risk to the implementation of the project and the strategies that the TEA and SEA will pursue in order to overcome those challenges.
(g) Assure that the TEA and SEA understand the continued responsibility of the SEA to ensure that affected LEAs are in compliance with the relevant ESEA formula grant laws and regulations.
(h) Describe how the TEA and SEA will work together to support the SEA's continued oversight responsibilities.
(i) Describe the relationships to be built among the TEA, the SEA, and the affected LEAs, including lines of authority, responsibility, and methods of communication.
(j) Include a letter of support from the superintendent of each LEA that will participate in the project indicating that the superintendent understands and supports the purposes, activities, and outcomes of the project as proposed in the application and defined in the final agreement.
To be considered for an award under this competition, each applicant must complete an application for funding. Detailed application instructions can be found in the application package. The application package will be available online at
As a part of the application for the STEP Pilot, each applicant must provide a detailed project narrative and a budget narrative.
(a) Describe the proposed STEP Pilot project goals and objectives pursuant to the vision and terms of agreement outlined in the preliminary agreement and the timeline for accomplishing the goals and objectives over the project period;
(b) Describe the demographics of the LEA (or LEAs) and eligible schools for which the TEA will perform ESEA State-level administrative functions and explain the rationale for selecting those LEAs and schools;
(c) Explain the rationale for selecting the ESEA State-administered formula grant program(s) for which the TEA will perform State-level administrative functions;
(d) Explain the rationale for selecting the State-level functions the TEA will perform during the project period and the timeline for the TEA assuming those functions;
(e) Explain how the TEA's performance of those functions will support the implementation of State and local efforts to improve services to and the educational outcomes for AI/AN children;
(f) Describe the functions the TEA will be able to perform during each year of the grant;
(g) Describe how the STEP Pilot grant funds will enable the TEA capacity to carry out the agreed upon State-level functions;
(h) Discuss the actions that the TEA and SEA will take during the first nine months of the grant toward developing a final agreement;
(i) Identify the members of the applicant's project team and each member's role and responsibility;
(j) Describe the qualifications of key personnel on the project team and the time each will allocate to the project;
(k) Identify the key SEA contacts and the role each will have in carrying out the activities of the project;
(l) If the application is submitted by a consortium, describe each consortium member's role, activities, and time allocated to the project;
(m) If applicable, identify consultants to the project, their role, and their qualifications;
(n) Describe the organizational structure for managing project activities and resources, including lines of authority and procedures for decision-making;
(o) Include a schedule of tasks and timelines for carrying out the activities of the grant that assign responsibility for each task, including milestones and deliverables;
(p) Describe the procedures and measures that the applicant will use to document project activities, monitor progress in implementing those activities, and assess how effectively project activities meet the goals and objectives of the grant; and
(q) To the extent the TEA's performance under this agreement requires the use of information from student education records covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or other privacy statutes, explain how compliance with FERPA and other privacy statutes will be achieved (e.g. under FERPA, the participating LEA(s) may designate the TEA as a school official for certain functions; or the SEA may designate the TEA as an authorized representative under the audit and evaluation exception).
In drafting the project narrative, applicants should keep in mind that peer reviewers must consider only the information provided in the written project narrative when scoring and commenting on the application. Therefore, applicants should draft their project narratives with the goal of helping peer reviewers understand how the narrative content aligns with the selection criteria described in section V of this notice.
(a) Detail the amount of grant funds that will be allocated to each budget category;
(b) Explain how grant funds allocated to each category will be used (e.g., by the TEA to hire and train personnel, to
In addition, the budget narrative must identify any procurements that will be required, the purpose for the procurements, and the procurement process that will be used.
To be eligible for an award, an applicant must include, as a part of its application, evidence that documents the applicant's eligibility, including:
(a) Certification by the eligible Indian tribe, as defined in this notice, that the applicant is the agency, department, or instrumentality of the Indian tribe that is primarily responsible for supporting the elementary and secondary education of the tribe's students.
(b) Certification by the eligible Indian tribe that it has a reservation; the certification must specify the census designation under which the reservation qualifies.
(c) Confirmation by the SEA that the schools that will participate in the project are eligible schools.
No applicant may receive more than one grant award under this competition.
The following definitions apply to this program:
If you are unsure of a reservation's status, contact the person listed as the Agency Contact in section VII of this notice.
Programs that could be included in a STEP Pilot project are: Title I, Part A; School Improvement Grants (ESEA § 1003(g)); Migrant Education (Title I, Part C); Neglected and Delinquent State Grants (Title I, Part D); Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Title II, Part A); English Learner Education State Grants (Title III, Part A); 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV, Part B), and Rural and Low-Income School Program (Title VI, Part B).
Impact Aid (Title VIII) and the Indian Education Formula Grants program (Title VII, Part A) are not included in this definition as funds for those programs are granted by the Department directly to LEAs, not SEAs.
The definitions, requirements, and selection criteria in this notice will apply to the FY 2012 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2013 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Continuation of each successive grant period is subject to satisfactory performance and availability of funds.
1.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.415.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person listed under
2.
Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding by sending the following information via email to
1. Applicant name, mailing address and phone number.
2. Contact person's name and email address.
3. Name of State Education Agency.
4. Whether the applicant intends to apply as a single TEA or a consortium of TEAs.
Applicants that do not complete this form may still apply for funding.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov)]. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)—and, after July 2012, with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR or SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information on SAM is available at SAM.gov.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the State-Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) Pilot, CFDA number 84.415, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov. Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be dated and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. (Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.)
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Joyce Silverthorne, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E201, Washington, DC 20202
Fax: (202) 401–0606.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.415, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.415, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your +application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
The maximum score for all the selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
(1) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project.
(2) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings.
(3) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement.
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.
(4) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization.
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(3) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(4) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
(5) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or organization at the end of Federal funding.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) In addition, within nine months from the start of the grant (by June 29, 2013), you must submit to the Department a final agreement described in section I of this notice.
(c) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118.
The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
(1) The number of funded projects for which the TEA assumes State-level functions by the beginning of the second grant period.
(2) The number of funded projects that, at the end of the project period, report that the project has resulted in creation of an arrangement under which the TEA will continue to be responsible for the State-level functions delineated in its TEA–SEA agreement after Federal funding ends.
5.
In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Joyce Silverthorne U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
In notice document 2012–12278 appearing on pages 29989 through 29995 in the issue of Monday, May 21, 2012 make the following correction:
On page 29989, in the second column, under the heading “Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:”, “September 3, 2012” should read “September 4, 2012”.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces the annual updates to the tables that will be used in the statutory “Federal Need Analysis Methodology” to determine a student's expected family contribution (EFC) for award year 2013–2014 for the student financial aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). An EFC is the amount that a student and his or her family may reasonably be expected to contribute toward the student's postsecondary educational costs for purposes of determining financial aid eligibility. The title IV programs include the Federal Pell Grant, Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Work-Study, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, and the Teach Grant Programs (title IV, HEA programs).
Ms. Marya Dennis, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, room 63G2, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20202–5454. Telephone: (202) 377–3385.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Part F of title IV of the HEA specifies the criteria, data elements, calculations, and tables used in the Federal Need Analysis Methodology EFC calculations.
Section 478 of part F of title IV of the HEA requires the Secretary to adjust four of the tables—the Income Protection Allowance, the Adjusted Net Worth of a Business or Farm, the Education Savings and Asset Protection Allowance, and the Assessment Schedules and Rates—each award year for general price inflation. The changes are based, in general, upon increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
For award year 2013–2014, the Secretary is charged with updating the income protection allowance for parents of dependent students, adjusted net worth of a business or farm, and the assessment schedules and rates to account for inflation that took place between December 2011 and December 2012. However, because the Secretary must publish these tables before December 2012, the increases in the tables must be based upon a percentage equal to the estimated percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U) for 2012. The Secretary must also account for any misestimation of inflation for the prior year. In developing the table values for the 2012–13 award year, the Secretary assumed a 0.8 percent increase in the CPI–U for the period December 2010 through December 2011. Actual inflation for this time period was 2.9 percent. The Secretary estimates that the increase in the CPI–U for the period December 2011 through December 2012 will be 2.2 percent. Additionally, section 601 of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA, Pub. L. 110–84) amended sections 475 through 478 of the HEA by updating the procedures for determining the income protection allowance for dependent students, as well as the income protection allowance tables for both independent students with dependents other than a spouse, and independent students without dependents other than a spouse. As amended by the CCRAA, the HEA now includes new 2013–2014 award year values for these income protection allowances. The updated tables are in sections 1, 2, and 4 of this notice.
The Secretary must also revise, for each award year, the education savings and asset protection allowances as provided for in section 478(d) of the HEA. The Education Savings and Asset Protection Allowance table for award year 2013–2014 has been updated in section 3 of this notice.
Section 478(h) of the HEA also requires the Secretary to increase the amount specified for the Employment Expense Allowance, adjusted for inflation. This calculation is based upon increases in the Bureau of Labor Statistics budget of the marginal costs for a two-worker family compared to a one-worker family for food away from home, apparel, transportation, and household furnishings and operations. The Employment Expense Allowance
The HEA provides for the following annual updates:
1.
For each additional family member add $4,100.
For each additional college student subtract $2,910.
The IPAs for independent students with dependents other than a spouse for award year 2013–14 are:
For each additional family member add $5,780.
For each additional college student subtract $4,110.
The IPAs for single independent students and independent students without dependents other than a spouse for award year 2013–14 are:
2.
3.
4.
Parents' contribution for a dependent student is computed according to the following schedule:
The contribution for an independent student with dependents other than a spouse is computed according to the following schedule:
5.
The employment expense allowance for parents of dependent students, married independent students without dependents other than a spouse, and independent students with dependents other than a spouse is the lesser of $3,900 or 35 percent of earned income.
6.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1087rr.
Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an up-
June 13, 2012.
The Commission will meet in Washington, DC at the United States Department of Education at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, in Barnard Auditorium.
Guy Johnson, Designated Federal Official, Equity and Excellence Commission, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202. Email:
On June 13, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the Equity and Excellence Commission will hold an open meeting in Washington, DC at the United States Department of Education at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, in Barnard Auditorium.
The purpose of the Commission is to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input regarding how the Federal government can increase educational opportunity by improving school funding equity. The Commission will also make recommendations for restructuring school finance systems to achieve equity in the distribution of educational resources and further student performance, especially for the students at the lower end of the achievement gap. The Commission will examine the disparities in meaningful educational opportunities that give rise to the achievement gap, with a focus on systems of finance, and recommend appropriate ways in which Federal policies could address such disparities.
The agenda for the Commission's June 13, 2012 meeting will include continuation of the review and deliberation related to the draft report to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (Secretary), prepared by the Draft Review subcommittee, summarizing the Commission's findings and recommendations for appropriate ways in which Federal policies can improve equity in school finance. The Commission is also expected to discuss what materials, if any, will accompany its report to the Secretary and the timing of the release of the report. Due to time constraints, there will not be a public comment period. However, individuals wishing to provide written comments may send their comments to the Commission via email at
Individuals interested in attending the meeting must register in advance, as meeting room seating may be limited. Please contact Guy Johnson at (202) 453–6567 or by email at
Records are kept of all Commission proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202 between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. You may contact Guy Johnson, Designated Federal Official, Equity and Excellence Commission, at
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, Department of Education.
Notice of deletion of existing system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) deletes one system of records from its existing inventory of systems of records subject to the Privacy Act.
This deletion is effective May 29, 2012.
Dr. Rosalinda B. Barrera, Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5C132, Washington, DC 20202–6510. Telephone: (202) 401–4300.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed in this section.
The Department deletes one system of records from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act, which requires submission of a report on a new or altered system of records.
This system of records is no longer needed because the study has been completed. Further, the system of records has been destroyed; therefore, the following system of records is deleted:
(18–15–01) Bilingual Education Graduate Fellowship Program, 64 FR 30106–30191 (June 4, 1999).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of English Language Acquisition deletes the following system of records:
18–15–01 Bilingual Education Graduate Fellowship Program, 64 FR 30106–30191 (June 4, 1999).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC–587, Land Description (Public Land States/Non-Public Land States [Rectangular or Non-Rectangular Survey System Lands in Public Land States]) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by June 28, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902–0145, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12–7–000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The information consolidated by the Form No. 587 verifies the accuracy of the information provided for the FERC–587 to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Moreover, this information ensures that U.S. lands can be reserved as hydropower sites and withdrawn from other uses.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $17,252 [250 hours ÷ 2,080
The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC–587 per response is $69 [$17,252 ÷ 250 responses = $69/response].
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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 received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 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:
On May 1, 2012, the FFP Project 110, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Mississippi River Lock and Dam #25—Project No. 14403, to be located at the existing Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 25 on the Mississippi River, near the City of Winfield in Lincoln County, Missouri and Calhoun County, Illinois. The Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 25 is owned by the United States government and operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) Fourteen new 60-foot by 60-foot reinforced concrete powerhouses, each containing two 500-kilowatt bulb turbine-generators, having a total combined generating capacity of 14 megawatts; (2) fourteen existing submersible tainter gates; (3) a new 40-foot by 35-foot substation; (4) a new 10-foot by 60-foot intake structure; (5) a new 3-mile-long, 34.5-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 56 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
The EPA published a document in the
Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets Division, (6204J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–343–9220; fax number: 202–343–2361; email address:
In the
In the
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0053, to (1) EPA online using
In the
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under EPA Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0053, which is available for online viewing at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region II, of a proposed
Comments must be submitted on or before June 28, 2012.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region II offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866. Comments should be sent to the individual identified below and should reference the Mercury Refining Superfund Site, Index No. CERCLA–02–2009–2006. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the individual identified below.
Sharon E. Kivowitz, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866. Telephone: 212–637–3183. Email:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Commission announces the next meeting date, time, and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (Committee). The purpose of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of all consumers in proceedings before the Commission.
The next meeting of the Committee will take place on Friday, June 15, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at the Commission's Headquarters Building, Room TW–C305.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Scott Marshall, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418–2809 (voice or TTY), or email
This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 12–770 released May 17, 2012, announcing the agenda, date and time of the Committee's next meeting.
At its June 15, 2012 meeting, it is expected that the Committee will consider a recommendation from its Broadband Working group regarding the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Initiative. The Committee will also consider two recommendations from the Committee's Consumer Empowerment Group regarding text spamming and third party wireless shutdowns. In
Meetings of the Committee are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
Simultaneous with the webcast, the meeting will be available through Accessible Event, a service that works with a web browser to make presentations accessible to people with disabilities. Persons wishing to attend through Accessible Event can listen to the audio and use a screen reader to read displayed documents, and can watch the video with open captioning. The Web site to access Accessible Event is
The public may ask questions of presenters via email
Alternatively, written comments to the Committee may be sent to: Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee at the address provided above.
The meeting is open to the public and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, assistive listening devices, and Braille copies of the agenda and handouts will be provided on site.
Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. The request should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and contact information. Please provide as much advance notice as possible; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to
10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 31, 2012.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen (202) 434–9950/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 12, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend through September 30, 2015, the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for the information collection requirements in the Health Breach Notification Rule. That clearance expires on September 30, 2012.
Comments must be filed by July 30, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Amanda Koulousias, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Recovery Act” or “the Act”) into law. The Act includes provisions to advance the use of health information technology and, at the same time, strengthen privacy and security protections for health information. The Act required the FTC to adopt a rule implementing the breach notification requirements applicable to vendors of personal health records, “PHR related entities,”
The Health Breach Notification Rule (“Rule”), 16 CFR part 318, requires vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities to provide: (1) notice to consumers whose unsecured personally identifiable health information has been breached; and (2) notice to the Commission. The Rule only applies to electronic health records and does not include recordkeeping requirements. The Rule requires third party service providers (i.e., those companies that provide services such as billing or data storage) to vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities to provide notification to such vendors and PHR related entities following the discovery of a breach. To notify the FTC of a breach, the Commission developed a form, which is posted at
These notification requirements are subject to the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Under the PRA, Federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). On September 22, 2009, OMB granted the FTC clearance (under Control Number 3084–0150) for these notification requirements through September 30, 2012. As required by the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the notification requirements in the Rule and associated form are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) how to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the required notifications; and (4) how to minimize the burden of providing the required information to consumers and to the agency. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
In the Commission's view, it has maximized the practical utility of the breach notification requirements in the Rule, consistent with the requirements of the Recovery Act. Under the Rule, consumers whose information has been affected by a breach of security receive notice of it “without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days” after discovery of the breach. Among other information, the notices must provide consumers with steps they can take to protect themselves from harm. Moreover, the breach notice requirements encourage entities to safeguard the information of their customers, thereby potentially reducing the incidence of harm.
The form entities must use to inform the Commission of a security breach requests minimal information, mostly in the form of replies to check boxes; thus, entities do not require extensive time to complete it. The Commission inputs the information it receives from entities into a database that the Commission updates periodically and makes available to the public. The publicly-available database serves businesses, the public, and policymakers. It provides businesses with information about potential sources of data breaches, which is particularly helpful to those setting up data security procedures. It provides the public with information about the extent of data breaches. Finally, it helps policymakers in developing breach notification requirements in non-health-related areas. Thus, in the Commission's view, the Rule and form have significant practical utility.
The PRA burden of the Rule's requirements depends on a variety of factors, including the number of covered firms; the percentage of such firms that will experience a breach requiring further investigation and, if necessary, the sending of breach notices; and the number of consumers notified. The annual hours and cost estimates below likely overstate the burden because, among other things, they assume, though it is not necessarily so, that all breaches subject to the Rule's notification requirements will be required to take all of the steps described below.
At the time the Rule was issued, insufficient data was available about the incidence of breaches in the PHR industry. Accordingly, staff based its burden estimate on data pertaining to private sector breaches across multiple industries. Staff estimated that there would be 11 breaches per year requiring notification of 232,000 consumers.
As described above, the Rule requires covered entities that have suffered a breach to notify the Commission. Since the Rule has now been in effect for over two years,
During 2010 and 2011, two firms informed the Commission of events that resulted in notices to consumers. In 2010, one firm sent notices to 2,094 consumers, and another firm sent notices to 3 consumers. This second firm sent an additional 2,899 notices (conveying similar information as in its 2010 notices) in 2011.
This information indicates that an average of about 2,500 consumers per year received notifications over the years 2010 and 2011. This number is about one percent of the figure staff had previously projected would require notification. Among other things, staff believes that this lower incidence rate may be due to a reported low utilization by consumers of PHR vendors.
Given the information it has received to date from covered entities, staff bases its current burden estimate on an assumed two breach incidents per year that, together, require the notification of approximately 2,500 consumers.
FTC staff projects that covered firms will require on average, per breach, 100 hours of employee labor to determine what information has been breached, identify the affected customers, prepare the breach notice, and make the required report to the Commission, at an estimated cost of $5,268
The breakdown of labor hours and costs is as follows: 50 hours of computer and information systems managerial time at $60.41 per hour; 12 hours of marketing manager time at $60.67 per hour; 33 hours of computer programmer time at $36.54 per hour; and 5 hours of legal staff time at $62.74 per hour.
Additionally, covered entities will incur labor costs associated with processing calls they may receive in the event of a data breach. The rule requires that covered entities that fail to contact 10 or more consumers because of insufficient or out-of-date contact information must provide substitute notice through either a clear and conspicuous posting on their web site or media notice. Such substitute notice must include a toll-free number for the purpose of allowing a consumer to learn whether or not his/her information was affected by the breach.
Individuals contacted directly will have already received this information. Staff estimates that no more than 10 percent of affected consumers will utilize the offered toll-free number. Thus, of the 2,500 consumers affected by a breach annually, staff estimates that 250 may call the companies over the 90 days they are required to provide such access. Staff additionally projects that 250 additional consumers who are not affected by the breach will also call the companies during this period. Staff estimates that processing all 500 calls will require an average of 192 hours of employee labor at a cost of $2,843.
Accordingly, estimated cumulative annual labor costs, excluding outside forensic services, is $13,379.
Commission staff anticipates that capital and other non-labor costs associated with the Rule will consist of the following:
1. The services of a forensic expert in investigating the breach; and
2. Notification of consumers via email, mail, web posting, or media.
Staff estimates that covered firms (breached entities) will require 30 hours of a forensic expert's time, at a cumulative cost of $3,534 for each breach. This is the product of hourly wages of an information security analyst ($39.27), tripled to reflect profits and overhead for an outside consultant ($117.81), and multiplied by 30 hours. Based on the estimate that there will be 2 breaches per year, the annual cost associated with the services of an outside forensic expert is $7,068.
As explained above, staff estimates that an average of 2,500 consumers per year will receive a breach notification. Given the online relationship between consumers and vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities, most notifications will be made by email and the cost of such notifications will be minimal.
In some cases, however, vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities will need to notify individuals by postal mail, either because these individuals have asked for such notification, or because the email addresses of these individuals are not current or not working. Staff estimates that the cost of notifying an individual by postal mail is approximately $2.50 per letter.
In addition, vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities sometimes may need to notify consumers by posting a message on their home page, or by providing media notice. Based on a recent study on data breach costs, staff estimates the cost of providing notice via Web site posting to be 6 cents per breached record, and the cost of providing notice via published media to be 3 cents per breached record.
In sum, the total estimate for non-labor costs is $7,918: $7,068 (services of a forensic expert) + $850 (costs of notifying consumers).
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Health Breach Notification Rule, PRA comments, P–125402” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 30, 2012. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at
Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of FMR Bulletin G–03.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has issued Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Bulletin G–03 which provides guidance to Executive Branch agencies for improving mail management policies, procedures, and activities. FMR Bulletin G–03 and all other FMR Bulletins may be found at
Mr. Derrick Miliner, Office of Governmentwide Policy (MAF), Office of Asset and Transportation Management, General Services Administration at (202) 273–3564 or via email at
In an effort to cut waste, increase sustainable practices, remain in compliance with Executive Orders and the Federal Management Regulation, Federal agencies, internal policies should address the four requirements described in this bulletin. These include: (1) Consolidation of mail including presorting; (2) reductions of hard copy agency-to-agency mailings; (3) sustainable mail practices; and (4) secure mail for teleworkers.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS–1500 and the CMS–1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS–1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS–1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other Federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid).
However, as the CMS–1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use by beneficiaries when they file their own claims. Therefore, the CMS–1490S (Patient's Request for Medicare Payment) was explicitly developed for easy use by beneficiaries who file their own claims. The form can be obtained from any Social Security office or Medicare carrier.
2.
Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS–1500 and the CMS–1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS–1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS–1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other Federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid).
However, as the CMS–1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use by beneficiaries when they file their own claims. Therefore, the CMS–1490S (Patient's Request for Medicare Payment) was explicitly developed for easy use by beneficiaries who file their own claims. The form can be obtained from any Social Security office or Medicare carrier.
Most recently, the National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) has revised the CMS–1500. The NUCC began revision work on the 1500 Claim Form, version 02/12 in 2009. The goal of this work was to align the paper form with some of the changes in the electronic Health Care Claim: Professional (837), 005010X222 Technical Report Type 3 (5010) and 005010X222A1 Technical Report Type 3 (5010A1). During the revision work, consideration was given to different approaches to revising the form. The NUCC decided to proceed with making “minor changes” to the current form, which was defined as no physical changes to the existing form lines or underlying layout of the form. Once the CMS–1500 (02/12) has been approved, the CMS–1500 (08/05) will be discontinued after a form runoff period during which both the CMS–1500 (08/05) and the CMS–1500 (02/12) can be used.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by July 30, 2012:
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of
1.
The sole purpose the End Stage Renal Disease System (ESRD) System Access Request Form is to identify the individual's data access rights once within the ESRD system. This function and the associated data collection is currently being accomplished under “Part B” of the QualityNet Identity Management System Account Form (CMS–10267; OCN: 0938–1050). Once the ESRD System Access Form is approved, the QualityNet Identity Management System (QIMS) Account Form will be revised to remove Part B from the QIMS data collection.
2.
For the Recovery Audit Prepayment Review Demonstration, CMS and its agents will request additional documentation, including medical records, to support submitted claims. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of the Program Integrity Manual, additional documentation includes any medical documentation, beyond what is included on the face of the claim that supports the item or service that is billed. For Medicare to consider coverage and payment for any item or service, the information submitted by the provider or supplier (e.g., claims) must be supported by the documentation in the patient's medical records. When conducting complex medical review, the contractor specifies documentation they require in accordance with Medicare's rules and policies. In addition, providers and suppliers may supply additional documentation not explicitly listed by the contractor. This supporting information may be requested by CMS and its agents on a routine basis in instances where diagnoses on a claim do not clearly indicate medical necessity, or if there is a suspicion of fraud.
For the Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Devices (PMDs) Demonstration, CMS will pilot prior authorization for Power Mobility Devices. Prior authorization will allow the applicable documentation that supports a claim to be submitted before the item is delivered. For prior authorization, relevant documentation for review is submitted before the item is delivered or the service is rendered. CMS will conduct this demonstration in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and Texas based on beneficiary address as reported to the Social Security Administration and recorded in the Common Working File (CWF). For the demonstration, a prior authorization request can be completed by the (ordering) physician or treating practitioner and submitted to the appropriate DME MAC for an initial decision. The supplier may also submit the request on behalf of the physician or treating practitioner. The physician, treating practitioner or supplier who submits the request on behalf of the physician or treating practitioner, is referred to as the “submitter.” Under this demonstration, the submitter will submit to the DME MAC a request for prior authorization and all relevant documentation to support Medicare coverage of the PMD item.
CMS has decided to amend the requirement when subsequent prior authorization requests are submitted. Currently, CMS or its agents have up to 30 business days in which to conduct a review and communicate a decision. CMS now proposes to allow up to 20 business days to provide suppliers and the Medicare beneficiaries' quality services within reasonable time period to facilitate the delivery of necessary equipment which enhances mobility related activities of daily living and supports independence.
These demonstrations have been designed to develop and demonstrate improved methods for the investigation and prosecution of fraud in the provision of care or services under the health programs established by the Social Security Act. The information required under this information collection request is requested by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. For the RAC demonstration, Medicare contractors may request the information from providers or suppliers submitting claims for payment from the Medicare program when data analysis indicates aberrant billing patterns or other information which may present a vulnerability to the Medicare program. Under the prior authorization demonstration, for certain PMDs, with a history of aberrant billing patterns, this information is requested in advance to determine appropriate payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud.
3.
Collecting voluntary customer feedback is the least burdensome, most effective way for the Agency to determine whether or not its public Web sites are useful to and used by its customers. Generic clearance is needed to ensure that the Agency can continuously improve its Web sites though regular surveys developed from these pre-defined questions. Surveying the Agency Web sites on a regular, ongoing basis will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience on any of the Web sites, maximizing the impact of the information and resulting in optimum benefit for the public. The surveys will ensure that this communication channel meets customer and partner priorities, builds the Agency's brands, and contributes to the Agency's health and human services impact goals.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 28, 2012. OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395–6974, Email:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is announcing the launch of the “CMS Provider Screening Innovator Challenge.” This Challenge is sponsored by CMS and is presented as part of the Partnership for Program Integrity Innovation program, and will be administered by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's (NASA) Federal Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation. This Challenge addresses our goals of improving our abilities to streamline operations, screen providers, and reduce fraud and abuse. Specifically, the challenge is an innovation competition to develop a multi-State, multi-program provider screening software application which would be capable of risk scoring, credentialing validation, identity authentication, and sanction checks, while lowering burden on providers and reducing administrative and infrastructure expenses for States and Federal programs. More information pertaining to the Medicaid and CHIP programs can be found at
Important dates concerning the Challenge include the following:
John “Chip” Garner, 410–786–3012.
Entrants are asked to develop artifacts and components of software applications that can be integrated into an open source solution that can deliver a reliable, scalable, and cost-effective provider-screening capability for multiple States (or for the nation).
We expect the winning entry to exhibit the following characteristics:
1. Reduced processing and transaction time for submitting and receiving queries to authoritative data sources regarding provider credentials and sanctions.
2. Reductions in time needed by providers to submit information and resolve discrepancies.
3. Administrative/infrastructure savings from a multi-tenant provider screening solution.
4. Improved availability of key provider data relevant for program participation and oversight.
5. Improved timeliness and accuracy in provider participation, oversight, and enrollment decisions.
6. Improved ability to implement sections 1902(a)(39) and 1902(a)(77) of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148 and 111–152) subsections 6401(b) and (c) (Provider Screening and Other Enrollment Requirements Under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP), and section 6501 (Termination of Provider Participation Under Medicaid if Terminated by Medicare or Other State Plan).
7. Assist in better driving alignment of the Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA) 3.0 framework to the Information and Technology Architecture levels. More information pertaining to MITA can be found at the following Web site:
To be eligible to win a prize under this Challenge, an individual or entity must comply with all the requirements under this section.
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible solely because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if such facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
A Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of his or her employment is not eligible to participate. A Federal employee seeking to participate in this competition outside the scope of his/her employment should consult his/her ethics official prior to developing the submission. Employees of CMS, the Challenge judges, and employees of any other company or individual involved with the design, production, execution, or distribution of the Challenge, along with such employees' or judges' immediate families (spouse, parents and
Regarding Registration Process for Participants, interested persons should read the Official Rules and register at the Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation Challenge portal:
Based on our current assumptions, we estimate that the total prize amount for the competitions conducted as part of this Challenge will fall between $500,000 and $600,000.
Challenge competition entries will be judged by an expert panel composed of CMS program staff. Judges shall be named after commencement of the Challenge. Competitions will be judged based upon both subjective and objective criteria. Should the highest-scoring submitted solution be missing requirements or otherwise need modification, it will enter a remediation/fix phase. Projects are posted and administered through a personalized, web-based administration tool. All projects progress, with some variance, through a sequence of phases from Registration to Submission to Screening to Review to Final Fixes. Submissions will be screened to ensure they meet minimum requirements for the project and do not include forbidden material. Competition submissions with subjectively evaluated components (for example, graphical design, workflow, GUI layout, etc.) are anonymized and evaluated by the Judges. Submissions with objectively scored components, such as projects (for example, architecture, development, etc.) are scored by the Judges by their fidelity to exact, enumerated requirements.
Overall, the solution must, at a minimum, meet the following criteria:
1. Capability to Conduct Identity Verification.
a. Capability to link individuals to their organizations and vice versa.
b. Capability to match on multiple variations of an individual's or organization's name to ensure that the correct entity is verified.
c. Ability to apply a range of screening rules to cross check data elements within the enrollment application.
d. Ability to apply a range of screening rules to cross check data elements against authoritative external sources for consistency.
e. Capability to establish and employ a graded screening methodology that escalates the intensity of screening for providers that are flagged as higher risk (that is, Report Card Methodology).
2. Capability to Build Provider Profiles.
a. Capability to retain screening and enrollment information and results, and compare against past and future screening results.
b. Capability to create a watch list to ensure that providers that are suspected or known to be fraudulent are flagged at the time of screening.
c. Capability to track re-enrollment attempts to ensure that slight changes to provider information are not considered a new enrollment.
d. Capability to revalidate periodically to ensure that changes in provider profiles are updated on a regular basis.
e. Capability to leverage public Web sites to conduct link analysis through which provider associations could be explored, and alerts posted on similar Web sites could be considered.
f. Capability to capture critical attributes
• Collection of application fees status.
• Exception waiver approved status.
• Incorporating enhanced screening data, including the results of site visits, criminal background checks, and finger printing.
• Capturing licensing information, financial data, and any other data attributes which could impact a risk lever.
• Other critical attributes.
g. Capability to achieve real time screening, scoring, and system outputs (queries/reports).
3. Capability to Evaluate and Maintain the Integrity of the Results.
a. Capability to persist data sources scores to determine the most reliable source for each data element.
b. Capability to evaluate data sources for reliability and accuracy.
c. Capability to create a learning system to ensure that observed negative trends factor back into screening rules so as to flag suspicious enrollments early in the screening process, ensuring the ability to detect and reduce/eliminate the incidence of false positives.
d. Capability to create system outputs to assign reasons/explanations to each code or score used.
e. Capability to build processes to allow for appropriate interpretation and action on screening and scoring results.
f. Capability to ensure that each rule is tested and its impact is evaluated prior to implementing.
4. Improves Efficiency.
a. Capability to allow searches to find specific provider information with minimal search attempts.
b. Capability to identify applicants, including individual providers and owners of institutional providers.
c. Capability to verify identity and prior history of problems with Medicaid/CHIP or Medicare programs.
d. Capability to identify and schedule revalidation process.
5. Meets Architectural Guidelines.
a. Adheres to the Architectural Guidance and meets the seven conditions and standards detailed in the Guidance for Exchange and Medicaid IT Systems, Version 2.0, located at:
b. Integrates into the MITA Framework—Is MITA Compliant. Information regarding MITA can be found at:
6. Accurate, Cost Effective, and Timely.
a. Turnaround time for performing automated checks typical for a web-based system.
b. Comprehensive verification of all data fields for all providers enrolled.
c. Efficiency of the Screening Solution in terms of cost and schedule to actually implement: Potential extra costs (for example, licenses, etc.) are documented.
d. Effectiveness of the risk-screening model in detecting fraud based issues.
e. Technical soundness of risk-scoring in flagging potential fraudulent patterns and tendencies.
CMS is one of the principal agencies dedicated to protecting the health of citizens by making our world healthier, safer, and better for all Americans. For more information, see
CMS reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify the Competition, or any part of it, for any reason, at CMS' sole discretion.
This competition is administrated by the Federal Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation through a partnership between CMS and NASA. The partnership is in accordance with the National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. 20113(e)) and The Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a public meeting to receive comments and recommendations from the public on the appropriate basis for establishing payment amounts for new or substantially revised Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes being considered for Medicare payment under the clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS) for calendar year (CY) 2013.
The public meeting will be held in the main auditorium of the central building of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850.
Glenn McGuirk, (410) 786–5723.
Section 531(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106–554) requires the Secretary to establish procedures for coding and payment determinations for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) that permit public consultation in a manner consistent with the procedures established for implementing coding modifications for International Classification of Diseases (ICD–9–CM). The procedures and public meeting announced in this notice for new tests are in accordance with the procedures published in the
Section 942(b) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108–173) added section 1833(h)(8) of the Act. Section 1833(h)(8)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to “establish by regulation procedures for determining the basis for, and amount of, payment for any clinical diagnostic laboratory test with respect to which a new or substantially revised HCPCS code is assigned on or after January 1, 2005” (hereinafter referred to as, “new test”). A code is considered to be “substantially revised” if “there is a substantive change to the definition of the test or procedure to which the code applies (such as a new analyte or a new methodology for measuring an existing analyte-specific test).” (See section 1833(h)(8)(E)(ii) of the Act.)
Section 1833(h)(8)(B) of the Act sets forth the process for determining the basis for, and the amount of, payment for new tests. Section 1833(h)(8)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act requires the Secretary to—(1) “make available to the public (through an Internet Web site and other appropriate mechanisms)a list that includes any such test for which establishment of a payment amount is being considered for a year”; and (2) “on the same day such list is made available, causes to have published in the
Section 1833(h)(8)(B)(iii) of the Act requires that we convene a public meeting not less than 30 days after publication of the notice in the
Two methods are used to establish payment amounts for new tests. The first method called “crosswalking” is used when a new test is determined to be comparable to an existing test, multiple existing test codes, or a portion of an existing test code. The new test code is assigned to the local fee schedule amounts and the national limitation amount of the existing test. Payment for the new test is made at the lesser of the local fee schedule amount or the national limitation amount. (See § 414.508(a).)
The second method called “gapfilling” is used when no comparable existing test is available. When using this method, instructions are provided to each Medicare carrier or Part A and Part B Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to determine a payment amount for its carrier geographic area(s) for use in the first year. The carrier-specific amounts are established for the new test code using the following sources of information, if available: charges for the test and routine discounts to charges; resources required to perform the test; payment amounts determined by other payers; and charges, payment amounts, and resources required for other tests that may be comparable or otherwise relevant. In the second year, the test code is paid at the national limitation amount, which is the median of the carrier-specific amounts. (See § 414.508(b).)
We are following our process to determine the appropriate basis and payment amount for new test codes under the CLFS for CY 2013. Some of these tests are molecular pathology tests. Stakeholders in the molecular pathology community continue to debate whether Medicare should pay for molecular pathology tests under the CLFS or the physician fee schedule (PFS). Medicare pays for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests through the CLFS and for services that ordinarily require physician work through the PFS. We believe that we would benefit from additional public comments on whether these tests are clinical diagnostic laboratory tests or whether they are services that should be paid under the PFS. Therefore, we intend to solicit public comments on this issue in the CY 2013 PFS proposed rule as well as
In addition, we intend to post our proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount under the CLFS for each of these new test codes by September 28, 2012. If we later decide, based on comments received in response to the proposals set forth in the CY 2013 PFS proposed rule, that any of these codes are not clinical diagnostic laboratory test codes, we will post our final payment determinations only for the new test codes that we determine are clinical diagnostic laboratory test codes that will be paid under the CLFS. We intend to post these final payment determinations in November (at the same time as the CY 2013 PFS final rule with comment period is published).
Comments and recommendations on whether these codes represent clinical diagnostic laboratory tests that should be paid under the CLFS or services that should be paid under the PFS should be provided in response to the proposals set forth in the CY 2013 PFS proposed rule. For purposes of this public meeting, comments and recommendations should be limited to the appropriate basis for establishing payment amounts for the new test codes under the CLFS for CY 2013.
This meeting to receive comments and recommendations (including accompanying data on which recommendations are based) on the appropriate payment basis for the new test codes contained on the preliminary list is open to the public. The meeting provides a forum for interested parties to make presentations and submit written comments on new test codes. The development of the codes for clinical laboratory tests is largely performed by the CPT Editorial Panel and will not be further discussed at the meeting. Comments submitted should pertain to the payment basis for establishing a payment amount for the new test codes posted on the CMS Web site.
The on-site check-in for visitors will be held from 8:30 a.m., to 9:00 a.m., followed by opening remarks. Registered persons from the public may discuss and recommend payment determinations for specific new test codes for the CY 2013 CLFS.
Because of time constraints, presentations must be brief, lasting no longer than 10 minutes, and must be accompanied by three written copies. In addition, CMS recommends that presenters make copies available for approximately 50 meeting participants, since additional copies will not be provided. Written presentations must also be electronically submitted to CMS on or before July 6, 2012. In the past, the meeting was held on a single day. This year's meeting will be held for an additional half day, extending the meeting to allow enough time for everyone who is interested in presenting information in person to be accommodated. However, presentation slots will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. In the event that there is not enough time for presentations by everyone who is interested in presenting, we will gladly accept written presentations from those who were unable to present due to time constraints. Presentations should be sent via email to Glenn McGuirk, at
• New test code(s) and descriptor.
• Test purpose and method.
• Costs.
• Charges.
• A recommendation, with rationale, for one of the two methods (cross-walking or gap-filling) for determining payment for new tests.
Additionally, the presenters should provide the data on which their recommendations are based. Written presentations from the public meeting will be available upon request, via email, to Glenn McGuirk at
Taking into account the comments and recommendations (and accompanying data) received at the public meeting, we will post our proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount for each such code, an explanation of the reasons for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and a request for public written comments on the proposed determinations on the CMS Web site by early September 2012. This Web site can be accessed at
After the final payment determinations have been posted on the CMS Web site, the public may request reconsideration of the basis for, and amount of payment for, a new test as set forth in § 414.509. (See the November 27, 2007 final rule (72 FR 66275 through 66280).)
The Division of Ambulatory Services in CMS is coordinating the public meeting registration. Beginning June 18, 2012, registration may be completed on-line at the following web address:
• Name.
• Company name.
• Address.
• Telephone number(s).
• Email address(es).
When registering, individuals who want to make a presentation must also specify on which new test code(s) they will be presenting comments. A confirmation will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Individuals must register by the date specified in the
Individuals attending the meeting who are hearing or visually impaired and have special requirements, or a condition that requires special assistance, should provide the information upon registering for the meeting. The deadline for such registrations is listed in the
The meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal
Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel. Persons without proper identification may be denied access to the building.
• Interior and exterior inspection of vehicles (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Passing through a metal detector and inspection of items brought into the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of demonstration or to support a demonstration, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a demonstration.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by June 28, 2012.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400T, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (DSNDCPA) (Pub. L. 109–462, 120 Stat. 3469) amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) with respect to serious adverse event reporting and recordkeeping for dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs marketed without an approved application. Section 761(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa–1(b)(1)) requires the manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name (under section 403(e)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(e)(1))) appears on the label of a dietary supplement marketed in the United States to submit to FDA all serious adverse event reports associated with the use of a dietary supplement, accompanied by a copy of the product label. The manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a dietary supplement is required by the DSNDCPA to use the MedWatch form (FDA 3500A) when submitting a serious adverse event report to FDA. In addition, under section 761(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, the submitter of the serious adverse event report (referred to in the statute as the “responsible person”) is required to submit to FDA a followup report of any related new medical information the responsible person receives within 1 year of the initial report.
Section 761(e)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa–1(e)(1)) requires that responsible persons maintain records related to the dietary supplement adverse event reports they receive, whether or not the adverse event is serious. Under the statute, the records must be retained for a period of 6 years.
As required by section 3(d)(3) of the DSNDCPA, FDA issued guidance to describe the minimum data elements for serious adverse event reports for dietary supplements. In the
The guidance recommends that the responsible person document the attempts to obtain the minimum data elements for a serious adverse event report. Along with these records, the guidance recommends that the responsible person keep the following other records: (1) Communications between the responsible person and the initial reporter of the adverse event and
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
This estimate is based on FDA's experience with similar adverse event reporting programs and the number of serious adverse event reports and followup reports received in the past 2 years. All dietary supplement manufacturers, packers, or distributors are subject to serious adverse event mandatory reporting. In 2007, we estimated in the final rule entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements” (72 FR 34752, June 25, 2007) that there were 1,460 such firms. FDA estimates that, in 2012, there are approximately 1,600 such firms, based on the estimate of 1,460 provided in the rule, with a 2 to 3 percent annual rate of growth applied.
FDA received 830 initial serious adverse event reports in FY 2010. The number of reports more than doubled to 1,777 in FY 2011. We expect this trend to continue and, in fact, increase due to continued industry compliance with mandatory reporting rules. Based on this, FDA expects to receive over the next 3 years an increasing number of reports per year: We estimate that we will receive 3,500 in 2012; 7,000 in 2013; and 14,000 in 2014; for an annual average of 8,166.66 per year, rounded to 8,160. Based on the Agency's records, the average number of initial reports per year on a per firm basis during 2010 and 2011 was 17. Thus, FDA estimates that, on average over the next 3 years, 480 firms will file 17 initial dietary supplement serious adverse event reports, for a total of 8,160 total annual responses.
FDA estimates that it will take respondents an average of 2 hours per report to collect information about a serious adverse event associated with a dietary supplement and report the information to FDA on Form FDA 3500A. Thus, the estimated total annual hour burden of initial dietary supplement serious adverse event reports is 16,320 hours (8,160 responses × 2 hours) as shown in row 1 of table 1 in this document.
If a respondent that has submitted a serious adverse event report receives new information related to the serious adverse event within 1 year of submitting the initial report, the respondent must provide the new information to FDA in a followup report. FDA estimates that 25 percent of serious adverse event reports related to dietary supplements will have a followup report submitted, resulting in approximately 2,040 followup reports submitted annually (8,160 × 0.25 = 2,040). Assuming that 25 percent of submitters of initial reports will submit followup reports (480 × 0.25 = 120) and the average number of followup reports per year per firm to be 17, FDA estimates that, on average over the next 3 years, 120 firms will file 17 followup reports, for a total of 2,040 total annual responses. We estimate that each followup report will require an hour to assemble and submit, including the time needed to copy and attach the initial serious adverse event report as recommended in the guidance. The estimated total annual hour burden for followup reports of new information is 2,040 hours (2,040 responses × 1 hour) as shown in row 2 of table 1.
The total reporting hour burden is 18,360 hours, which equals the burden for the mandatory reports (16,320) plus the burden for the followup new information (2,040).
All 1,600 dietary supplement manufacturers, packers, or distributors, are subject to serious adverse event mandatory recordkeeping, thus FDA estimates that there are a total of 1,600 recordkeepers. FDA further estimates that each recordkeeper will keep approximately 74 records per year, for a total of 118,400 records. The Agency estimates that assembling and filing these records, including any necessary photocopying, will take approximately 30 minutes, or 0.5 hours, per record. Therefore, 118,400 records × 0.50 hours = 59,200 total hours. FDA bases its estimates on its experience with similar adverse event reporting programs.
Once the documents pertaining to an adverse event report have been assembled and filed under the Safety Reporting Portal, FDA expects the
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The ACCV will meet on Thursday, June 14 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. (EDT). The public can join the meeting via audio conference call by dialing 1–800–369–3104 on June 14 and providing the following information:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
OBA will again offer those members of the public viewing the meeting via webcast (see OBA Meetings Page available at
OBA will read comments into the record during the public comment periods as stated on the agenda. It is not unusual for the meeting to run ahead or behind schedule due to changes in the time needed to review a protocol. It is advisable to monitor the webcast to determine when public comments will be read. Each public comment period follows a specific discussion item. OBA will
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
OMB's “Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance Program Announcements” (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a statement concerning the official government programs contained in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its announcements the number and title of affected individual programs for the guidance of the public. Because the guidance in this notice covers virtually every NIH and Federal research program in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be used, it has been determined not to be cost effective or in the public interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list would likely require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federal program would be included as many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, both national and international, have elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individual program listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information address above about whether individual programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended because the premature disclosure of grant applications and the discussions would likely to significantly frustrate implementation of recommendations.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors for Basic Sciences National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval to the following collection of information: 1625–0095, Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before June 28, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2012–0149] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3652 or fax 202–475–3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202–366–9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2012–0149], and must be received by June 28, 2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG–2012–0149], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 16044, March 19, 2012) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
1.
2.
3.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for applications.
The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). This Committee advises the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety.
Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume in time to reach Patrick Mannion, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) on or before July 13, 2012.
If you wish to apply for membership, your resume should be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Commander Rob Smith, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), 202–372–1410,
The TSAC is a Federal advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the
Normally, the Committee is expected to meet at least twice a year either in the Washington DC area or in a city with large towing centers of commerce and populated by high concentrations of towing industry and related businesses. The Committee may also be called to meet for extraordinary purposes. Subcommittees and workgroups may conduct intercessional telephonic meetings when necessary for specific tasking.
As specified in 33 U.S.C. 1231a, the Committee is to consist of 18 members:
○ Seven members representing the Barge and Towing industry (reflecting a regional geographical balance);
○ One member representing the offshore mineral and oil supply vessel industry;
○ One member representing holders of active licensed Masters or Pilots of towing vessels with experience on the Western Rivers and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
○ One member representing the holders of active licensed Masters of towing vessels in offshore service.
○ One member representing Masters who are active ship-docking or harbor towing vessel.
○ One member representing licensed or unlicensed towing vessel engineers with formal training and experience.
○ Two members representing each of the following groups:
Port districts, authorities, or terminal operators;
Shippers (of whom at least one shall be engaged in the shipment of oil or hazardous materials by barge);
○ Two members representing the General Public.
We will consider applicants for five positions that expire or become vacant on September 30, 2012:
• Two representatives from the Barge and Towing industry;
• One representative from the offshore mineral and oil supply vessel industry;
• One representative from shippers; and
• One member from the general public.
To be eligible, applicants should have expertise, knowledge, and experience relative to the position in the towing industry, marine transportation, or business operations associated with shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety. If you are selected as a non-representative member, or as a member who represents the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as a SGE, applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the
Each member serves for a term of up to 3 years. Members may be considered to serve consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, or other compensation from the Federal Government. The exception to this policy is the possible reimbursement of travel and per diem expenses depending on fiscal budgetary constraints.
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal advisory committees. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
To visit our online docket, go to
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on a new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The ICR will assess the current security practices in the highway and motor carrier industry by way of its Highway Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) program, which encompasses site visits and interviews, and is part of the larger domain awareness, prevention, and protection program supporting TSA's and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) missions. This voluntary collection allows TSA to conduct transportation security-related assessments during site visits with security and operating officials of surface transportation entities.
Send your comments by July 30, 2012.
Comments may be emailed to
Susan Perkins at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227–3398.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and delegated authority from the Secretary of Homeland Security, TSA has broad responsibility and authority for “security in all modes of transportation including security responsibilities over modes of transportation that are exercised by the Department of Transportation.”
In the past, TSA has conducted Corporate Security Reviews (CSRs) with organizations engaged in transportation
At this time, TSA is consolidating some assessment programs within surface modes of transportation. As part of this effort, the Highway CSR will become a Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE). This will provide for greater consistency as TSA also has a BASE program to evaluate the status of security and emergency response programs on transit systems throughout the nation; this program operates similarly to the CSRs.
Highway BASE program will continue to be a voluntary, instructive, and interactive review used by TSA to assess the adequacy of security measures related to highway transportation—such as trucking, school bus, and motorcoach industries, privately-owned highway assets that may include bridges and tunnels, and other related systems and assets owned and operated by state departments of education and transportation. The Highway BASE program encompasses site visits and interviews, and is one piece of a much larger domain awareness, prevention, and protection program in support of the TSA and DHS missions. TSA is seeking to obtain OMB approval for this information collection so that TSA can ascertain minimum security standards and identify coverage gaps, activities critical to carrying out its transportation security mission.
In carrying out BASE, Transportation Security Specialists (TSS) from TSA's Highway and Motor Carrier Division (HMC) and Transportation Security Inspectors-Surface (TSI–S) conduct site visits of trucking (excluding hazardous materials shippers and carriers as per agreement with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), school bus, motorcoach companies, bridge and tunnel owners, State DOTs, and State Departments of Energy (DOEs) throughout the Nation. The TSA representatives analyze the owner's/operator's security plan, if the owner/operator has adopted one, and determines if the mitigation measures included in the plan are being properly implemented. In addition to examining the security plan document, TSA reviews one or more assets of the private and/or public owner/operator. During the site visits, TSA completes a BASE checklist form, which contains four (4) topic areas: Management and accountability, personnel security, facility security, and vehicle security. Within these four topics are twenty-three recommended measures, also referred to as Security Action Items (SAIs). TSA conducts this collection through voluntary face-to-face visits at the headquarters and site facilities of the surface transportation owners/operators. All BASE reviews are done on a voluntary basis.
Typically, TSA sends one to two employees to conduct a two to three hour discussion/interview with representatives from the owner/operator. TSA collects information from businesses of all sizes in the course of conducting these surface mode BASEs. TSA conducts these interviews to ascertain information on security measures and to identify security gaps. The interviews also provide TSA with a method to encourage the surface transportation owners/operators affected by the BASE to be diligent in effecting and maintaining security-related improvements. This program provides TSA with real-time information on current security practices within the infrastructure, trucking, school bus, and motorcoach modes of the surface transportation sector. This information allows TSA to adapt programs to the changing threat dynamically, while incorporating an understanding of the improvements owners/operators make in their security posture. Without this information, the ability of TSA to perform its security mission would be severely hindered. Additionally, the relationships these face-to-face contacts foster are critical to TSA's ability to reach out to the surface transportation stakeholders affected by the BASEs. TSA assures respondents the portion of their responses deemed Sensitive Security Information (SSI) will be handled consistent with 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.
The Highway BASE process will align highway and motor carrier security efforts with other TSA risk reduction efforts and provide industry partners corrective action options to consider by identifying security smart practices to share with others.
A BASE review evaluates a highway modal entity's security program components using a two-phased approach: (1) Field collection of information and (2) analysis/evaluation of collected information. The information collected by TSA through BASE reviews strengthens the security of highway systems by supporting security program development (including grant programs) and the analysis/evaluation provides a consistent road map for highway systems to address security and emergency program vulnerabilities. In addition, each highway entity that undergoes a BASE assessment is provided with a report of results that is used in security enhancement activities.
Specifically, the information collected will be used:
1. To develop a baseline understanding of a highway entity's security and emergency management processes, procedures, policies, programs, and activities against security requirements and recommended security practices published by TSA.
2. To enhance a highway entity's overall security posture through collaborative review and discussion of existing security activities, identification of areas of potential weakness or vulnerability, and development of remedial recommendations and courses of action.
3. To identify programs and protocols implemented by a highway entity that represent an “effective” or “smart” security practice warranting sharing with the highway community as a whole to foster general enhancement of security in the highway surface mode.
4. To inform TSA's development of security strategies, priorities, and programs for the most effective application of available resources, including funds distributed under the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) and Trucking Security Program (TSP), to enhance security in the Nation's highway modal system.
While TSA has not set a limit on the number of BASE reviews to conduct, TSA estimates approximately 750 visits per year. The annual hour burden for this information collection is estimated to be 3,000 hours. This estimate is based on TSA conducting 750 visits per year, each visit lasting two to three hours. TSA estimates no annual cost burden to respondents.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 125 North Post Oak Road, Sulfur, LA 70663, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as commercial gauger became effective on July 20, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2014.
Jonathan McGrath, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202–344–1060.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; Room 9120 or number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1–800–877–8339).
Chuck Capone, Director, Office of Evaluation, Office of Finance and Budget, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 755–7500 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting 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 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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of Acquisition and Property Management, Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Acquisition and Property Management announces that it has submitted a request for renewal of approval of this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and requests public comments on this submission.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection request, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by June 28, 2012, in order to be assured of consideration.
Send your written comments by facsimile (202) 395–5806 or email (
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instruments should be directed to Mary Heying, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, 1849 C Street NW., MS 2607 MIB, Washington, DC 20240. You may also request additional information by telephone (202) 254–5503, facsimile at (202) 254–5591, or by email at
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)). This notice identifies an information collection activity that the Office of Acquisition and Property Management has submitted to OMB for renewal. Form DI–381, Claim For Relocation Payments—Residential, and DI–382, Claim For Relocation Payments—Nonresidential, provide the means for the applicant to present allowable moving expenses and certify to occupancy status, after having been displaced because of Federal acquisition of their real property.
Individuals or businesses displaced by Federal acquisition of their real property will submit either Form DI–381 or DI–382, respectively. These forms give the claimant the opportunity to provide the information needed to determine the amount of the financial claim which would remunerate the individual or business for costs incurred as a result of the loss of the property as well as certain moving costs and other associated costs. For example, the residential Form provides for itemization of downpayment and incidental expenses. The non-residential Form provides for itemization of the type of concern or business, moving and storage expenses, reasonable search expenses, direct loss of personal property, and reestablishment expenses, for example. Without such forms, it would not be possible to acquire the precise information associated with the permissible reimbursements permitted under the statute.
(1)
(2)
(3)
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
The Department of the Interior invites comments on:
(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 the burden of the collection and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment with the Office of Acquisition and Property management at the above address. A valid picture identification is required for entry into the Department of the Interior.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council).
The meeting will be held in the Room B–20 at the U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.
Joshua Winchell, Council Coordinator, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop 3103–AEA, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone (703) 358–2639; fax (703) 358–2548; or email
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council will hold a meeting.
Formed in February 2010, the Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that:
1. Benefit recreational hunting;
2. Benefit wildlife resources; and
3. Encourage partnership among the public, the sporting conservation community, the shooting and hunting sports industry, wildlife conservation organizations, the States, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government.
The Council advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, reporting through the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in consultation with the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Chief, Forest Service (USFS); Chief, Natural Resources Service (NRCS); and Administrator, Farm Services Agency (FSA). The Council's duties are strictly advisory and consist of, but are not limited to, providing recommendations for:
1. Implementing the Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for Implementation;
2. Increasing public awareness of and support for the Sport Wildlife Trust Fund;
3. Fostering wildlife and habitat conservation and ethics in hunting and shooting sports recreation;
4. Stimulating sportsmen and women's participation in conservation and management of wildlife and habitat resources through outreach and education;
5. Fostering communication and coordination among State, Tribal, and Federal Government; industry; hunting and shooting sportsmen and women; wildlife and habitat conservation and management organizations; and the public;
6. Providing appropriate access to Federal lands for recreational shooting and hunting;
7. Providing recommendation to improve implementation of Federal conservation programs that benefit wildlife, hunting, and outdoor recreation on private lands; and
8. When requested by the agencies' designated ex officio members or the Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the Council Chairman, performing a variety of assessments or reviews of policies, programs, and efforts through the Council's designated subcommittees or workgroups.
Background information on the Council is available at
The Council will convene to consider:
1. The Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for Implementation;
2. Fire management and recovery;
3. Programs of the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture, and their bureaus, that enhance hunting opportunities and support wildlife conservation;
4. America's Great Outdoors; and
5. Other Council business.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
Because entry to Federal buildings is restricted, all visitors are required to preregister to be admitted. In order to attend this meeting, you must register by close of business on the dates listed in “Public Input” under
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date above, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, in writing (preferably via email; see
Summary minutes of the conference will be maintained by the Council Coordinator (see
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is seeking comments on the survey instrument for the collection of information for the American Indian and Alaska Native Population and Labor Force Report. The survey instrument that is currently authorized by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1076–0147 expires August 31, 2012.
Submit comments on or before July 30, 2012.
You may submit comments on the information collection to Steven Payson, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240; email:
Steven Payson, 202–513–7745.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is seeking comments on a survey instrument to collect information for the American Indian Population and Labor Force Report, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, as amended, requires the Secretary to develop, maintain and publish, not less than biennially, a report on the population by gender, age, availability for work, and employment. The survey instrument is being revised to include updated instructions and additional questions that are consistent with the definitions of standard measures of population and employment, as defined in the Federal Statistical System, to represent an accurate report. The proposed revisions will be published in a subsequent
The BIA requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection 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 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.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (Draft RMP) Amendment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the SunZia Southwest Transmission Line Project and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft RMP Amendment and Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the SunZia Southwest Transmission Line Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Adrian Garcia, Project Manager, c/o Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508–1560, or by telephone at 505–954–2000. Any persons wishing to be added to our mailing list of interested parties may write or call the BLM Project Manager, at the address or phone number above. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individuals during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question for the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
In September 2008, SunZia Transmission LLC, submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application to the BLM requesting authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and commission two electric transmission lines on public lands. The Applicant's objective for the Project is to improve the reliability and efficiency of the western electrical grid and aid in delivering electrical energy throughout the region. The BLM's purpose and need for the EIS is to respond to the Applicant's ROW application.
On May 29, 2009, the BLM published in the
To allow the public an opportunity to review the proposal and Project information, the BLM held public scoping meetings in June 2009 in Eloy, Oracle, Safford, and Willcox, Arizona, and Lordsburg, New Mexico. In July 2009, public scoping meetings were held in Deming, Socorro, Carrizo, and Elephant Butte, New Mexico.
Based on the BLM's evaluation of comments received during the initial scoping period, the study area was expanded to include alternative routes east of the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Three scoping meetings were held in October 2009, in Las Cruces, Chaparral, and Alamogordo, New Mexico.
The Draft EIS analyzes the consequences of granting a ROW to SunZia Transmission, LLC (SunZia or Applicant) for locating two parallel overhead 500 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission lines from the proposed SunZia East substation in Lincoln County, New Mexico, to the existing Pinal Central Substation in Pinal County, Arizona. The proposed SunZia Transmission Project (Project) would include two new, single circuit 500 kV transmission lines located adjacent to one another and would be located on Federal, State, and private lands. One of the 500 kV transmission lines would be constructed and operated as an alternating current (AC) facility transmission line, and SunZia may construct and operate one of the proposed transmission lines as either AC or direct current (DC). The requested ROW width would be about 400 feet, in order to accommodate a separation of 200 feet between the two lines, but could be up to 1,000 feet wide in areas where terrain poses engineering or construction constraints. Engineering studies would determine those requirements as part of the Project. In addition to the SunZia East Substation, three new substations would be constructed and operated at the following intermediate sites: the proposed Midpoint Substation near Deming, New Mexico, in Luna County; the proposed Lordsburg Substation near Lordsburg, New Mexico, in Hidalgo County; and the proposed Willow Substation, near Willcox, Arizona, in Graham County.
The lengths of the varying Project alternative routes considered and evaluated in the Draft EIS range between about 460 miles to 530 miles. The BLM has identified in the Draft EIS a preferred alternative route. The BLM seeks comments on all the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS.
The length of the BLM preferred route would be about 530 miles. It is estimated that approximately 191 miles, or 36 percent, of the ROW for the preferred route would be located on Federal lands in New Mexico and Arizona. Once constructed, the Project would be in operation year-round. In New Mexico, about 137 miles of the BLM preferred route would cross public lands administered by four BLM Field Offices: Las Cruces, Socorro, Rio Puerco, and Roswell. In Arizona, about 54 miles of the BLM preferred route would cross public lands administered by two Field Offices: the Safford and Tucson BLM Field Offices. The BLM's New Mexico State Office has been designated the lead office for this ROW application.
This Project includes prospective amendments of the BLM Socorro RMP, the Mimbres RMP, and possibly the Safford Field Office RMP. By this notice, and the NOI to Prepare an EIS published in May 2009, the BLM is complying with requirements in 43 CFR 1610.2(c). The BLM is integrating the land use planning process with the NEPA analysis process for this Project.
Alternative routes were added to the study area based on the BLM's evaluation of comments received during the second scoping period, which ended on November 27, 2009. These alternative routes were located within Lincoln, Torrance, Valencia, and Socorro Counties in New Mexico and within Pima, Cochise, and Pinal Counties in Arizona. A third set of public meetings was held in April 2010 in Socorro, New Mexico, and Tucson, Arizona.
Issues and potential impacts to specific resources were identified during scoping and in coordinating agency meetings. These issues and potential impacts include:
• Engineering and construction restraints;
• Corridor alignments and alternatives;
• Effects to sedimentation in rivers, soil erosion, and alteration of watersheds;
• Effects to wildlife habitats, migratory birds and waterfowl, other bird species impacts, bighorn sheep, deserts and grasslands, management of invasive plant species, and ensuring effective reclamation;
• Effects to cultural resources and archaeological sites;
• Effects to Native American traditional cultural properties and respected places;
• Effects to visual resources and existing view sheds;
• Conflicts with current land use plans;
• Impacts on wilderness areas, livestock grazing and ranching, property values, off-highway vehicle use, and military use;
• Effects to rural lifestyles, tourism, and socioeconomic conditions; and
• Avoidance of sensitive areas such as wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national forests, and military airspace.
Alternative routes for the proposed transmission lines were divided into four route groups containing various alternative segments, or subroutes. The BLM has identified in the Draft EIS a preferred alternative route. The BLM seeks comments on the preferred route, all other routes, and the no action alternative, considered in the Draft EIS.
Subroute 1A1 (228.8 miles), the BLM preferred alternative, proceeds northwest from the proposed SunZia East substation then continues into Torrance County, about 4.3 miles north of the Gran Quivira Unit of the Salinas Pueblo Mission National Monument, and then enters Socorro County, east of the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. Subroute 1A1 crosses the Rio Grande River north of Socorro, and then turns south along an existing transmission line path into Sierra County. The route continues south to the proposed Midpoint Substation, near Deming, New Mexico. The ROW for Subroute 1A1 would parallel about 130 miles of existing utility ROW and crosses about 110 miles of public land administered by the BLM.
Subroutes 1A, 1B, 1B1, 1B2, 1B2a and 1B3 were all considered and evaluated. For discussion of analysis on these routes, refer to the Draft EIS.
Subroute 3A1 (140.3 miles), the BLM preferred alternative, proceeds west from the Midpoint Substation to a point about 9 miles west of the proposed Lordsburg Substation in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. From that point the subroute crosses to the south and continues along a portion of an existing pipeline corridor into Cochise County, Arizona, then northwest to the proposed Willow-500kV substation in Graham County. The ROW for Subroute 3A1 would parallel about 33 miles of existing utility ROW and cross about 66 miles of Federal lands administered by the BLM.
Subroutes 3A and 3B were considered and evaluated. For discussion of analysis on these routes refer to the Draft EIS.
The amount of BLM land subject to ROW for the various alternatives in this group would be about 2 miles (Subroute 4C2a or 4C2b) to 15 miles (sub-route 4C2 or 4C2c). Subroute 4C2c (161.2 miles), the BLM preferred alternative, follows an existing 345 kV transmission line corridor from the Willow 500 kV Substation southwest, crossing the San Pedro River about 12 miles north of Benson, Arizona. The route then continues northwesterly, crossing the northeast corner of Pima County, then follows a westerly path through Pinal County, north of Oracle, Arizona toward the Tortolita Substation, approximately 25 miles northwest of Tucson. From that point, Subroute 4C2c would parallel approximately 90 miles of existing utilities (including about 72 miles of existing electrical transmission lines).
Subroutes 4A, 4B, 4C1, 4C2, 4C2a, 4C2b and 4C3 were considered and evaluated. For discussion of analysis on these routes, refer to the Draft EIS.
In addition to the sub-routes described above, various local alternatives and crossover segments within Route Group 4 were also included in detailed study in the Draft EIS. The BLM, SunZia, and cooperating agencies worked together to identify alternative routes that would conform to existing land use plans. However, in locations where conformance is not likely, the BLM identified draft plan amendments that would bring any of the alternatives routes into conformance with the respective land use plans, as described below. The BLM will identify those plan amendments it intends to implement (as proposed plan amendments) in the Final EIS.
The following land use plan amendments may be necessary to bring the SunZia Southwest Transmission Line Project into conformance with applicable BLM RMPs. Prospective plan amendments will comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations and apply only to Federal lands and mineral estate administered by the BLM. Plan amendment alternatives were considered, which included multiple-use corridors of varying widths. The BLM preferred alternative is to amend the RMPs' existing visual resource management (VRM) decisions as well as ROW avoidance areas as described in the Draft EIS. The affected RMPs include:
• Socorro RMP (2010), Socorro Field Office: Amendments may be needed for modifications to existing VRM decisions and/or to ROW avoidance area decisions (BLM preferred alternative and other alternatives in Route Group 1).
• Mimbres RMP (1993), Las Cruces District Office: Amendments may be needed for modifications to existing VRM decisions and/or to ROW avoidance area decisions (BLM preferred alternative in Route group 3).
• Safford District RMP (1991), Safford Field Office (Gila District): An amendment may be needed for modifications to existing VRM decisions and/or ROW avoidance area decisions (only alternative Subroute 4C1 in Route Group 4 would require a plan amendment, although this alternative is not the BLM preferred alternative).
The Draft EIS analyzes the environmental consequences of a no action alternative, the proposed action, segment and design alternatives, and land use plan amendments. For this EIS, the no action alternative means that the BLM would not grant SunZia a ROW for the construction and operation of the proposed Project and would not amend any land use plans. The Project facilities, including transmission lines and substations, would not be built and existing land uses and present activities in the Project study area would continue. This alternative does not consider the potential for additional actions that could occur depending on the denial of the proposed action or alternatives.
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy the public involvement process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Ongoing tribal consultations will continue to be conducted in accordance with policy and tribal concerns, and any impacts on Indian trust assets will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this
Copies of the Draft EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local governments, public libraries in the Project area, and to interested parties that previously requested a copy. The Draft EIS and supporting documents will be available electronically on the following BLM Project Web site:
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:
• Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88005–3370
• Bureau of Land Management, Roswell Field Office, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, NM 88201–2019
• Bureau of Land Management, Socorro Field Office, 901 South Highway 85, Socorro, NM 87801–4168
• Bureau of Land Management, Rio Puerco Field Office, 435 Montano Road NE., Albuquerque, NM 87107–4935
• Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office, 3201 East Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756
• Bureau of Land Management, Safford Field Office, 711 14th Avenue, Safford, AZ 85546–3337
• Bureau of Land Management, Gila District Office, 1763 Paseo San Luis, Sierra Vista, AZ 85635–4611
• Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508–1560
• Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004–4427
• Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 1616 West Adams, Phoenix, AZ 85007–2614
• Arizona Game & Fish Department (AZGFD), 5000 West Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086–5000
• New Mexico State Land Office (NMSLO), 310 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87504–1148
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regulatory Division, 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE., Albuquerque, NM 87109–3435
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 500 Gold Avenue SW., Albuquerque, NM 87102–3118
A limited number of copies of the document will be available. To request a copy, contact Adrian Garcia, BLM Project Manager, BLM New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508–1560.
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.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or any other personal identifying information in your comment, please be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be publically available at any time. While you may ask us to withhold this information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held Thursday and Friday, July 26 and 27, 2012, at the Geyserville Inn, 21714 Geyserville Ave., Geyserville, California. On July 26, the council will convene at 10 a.m. and depart for a field tour of public lands. Members of the public are welcome. They must provide their own transportation, food and beverages. On July 27, the council meets from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the conference room of the Geyserville Inn. Public comments will be accepted at 11 a.m.
Nancy Haug, BLM Northern California District manager, (530) 224–2160; or Joseph J. Fontana, public affairs officer, (530) 252–5332.
The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northwest California. At this meeting the RAC will discuss planning efforts for the Lost Coast Headlands and Lacks Creek areas of Humboldt County, hear a report on land use and natural resources shared by the BLM and neighboring national forests and plan for upcoming work with the BLM northwest California field offices. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and meals. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
United States International Trade Commission.
May 30, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–480 and 731–TA–1188 (Final) (High Pressure Steel Cylinders from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before June 11, 2012.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
60-Day notice of information collection under review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until July 30, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Robin M. Stutman, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone: (703) 305–0470.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 2E–508, Washington, DC 20530.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data for quarterly financial reporting on federally funded programs, on Form ETA–9130 (due to expire November 30, 2012).
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before July 30, 2012.
Submit written comments to Shantay Logan, Office of Grants Management, N–4716, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–693–3319 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202–693–3362, Email:
This proposed information collection notice requests an extension of form ETA–9130, OMB approval No. 1205–0461 which is currently being used by all ETA federally funded programs.
ETA programs have varied administrative cost limitation requirements as specified in program statutes, regulations, and/or individual grant agreements. These requirements are met with a line item for Total Administrative Expenditures, thus providing a mechanism for assessing compliance with these requirements.
ETA has utilized the data collected to assess the effectiveness of ETA programs and to monitor and analyze the financial activity of its grantees. Grantees are provided with software that reflects the requirements of ETA Form 9130 so that the required data will be reported electronically.
This data collection format permits ETA to evaluate program effectiveness and to monitor and analyze financial activity, while complying with OMB efforts to streamline Federal financial reporting.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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 submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 14, 2011, applicable to workers of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, also known as Hawker Beechcraft International SVC, Rapid Surplus Parts, Hawker Beechcraft Svcs, Travel Air Insurance, and Hawker Beechcraft Regional, Wichita, Kansas. The workers produce aviation aircraft.
At the request of the State Workforce Office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from the company shows that the correct name of the subject firm is Hawker Beechcraft Defense Company, LLC, also known as Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, also known as Hawker Beechcraft International SVC, also known as Rapid Surplus Parts, Hawker Beechcraft SVCS, also known as Travel Air Insurance, and also known as Hawker Beechcraft Regional.
Accordingly, the Department has amended this certification to correct the subject firm name. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by the shift in production to Mexico.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–74,901 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Hawker Beechcraft Defense Company, LLC, also known as Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, also known as Hawker Beechcraft International SVC, also known as Rapid Surplus Parts, Hawker
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 13, 2012, applicable to workers of Siltronic Corporation, Fab1 Plant, including on-site leased workers from Express Temporaries and Aerotek Commercial Staffing, Portland, Oregon. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
At the request of State Workforce Office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.
The company reports that workers from G4S Secure Solutions USA, SBM Management Services, LP, Alsco Portland Industrial, VWR International, Inc., TEK Systems, Solo W–2, Inc., Wickstrom Consulting Services, Inc., Xenium, Summit Staffing, and Brooks Staffing were employed on-site at the subject firm.
The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from the afore-mentioned agencies who work(ed) on-site at subject firm. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–81,456 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Siltronic Corporation, Fab1 Plant, including on-site leased workers from Express Temporaries, Aerotek Commercial Staffing, G4S Secure Solutions USA, SBM Management Services, LP, Alsco Portland Industrial, VWR International, Inc., TEK Systems, Solo W–2, Inc., Wickstrom Consulting Services, Inc., Xenium, Summit Staffing, and Brooks Staffing, Portland, Oregon, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 28, 2011, through April 13, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on April 13, 2012 through April 13, 2014, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 22, 2011, applicable to workers of AI-Shreveport, LLC, a subsidiary of Android Industries, Shreveport, Louisiana. The Notice of determination was published in the
At the request of the State Workforce Office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.
The company reports that workers from Career Adventures, Inc. were employed on-site at the subject firm. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Career Adventures, Inc., working on-site at the Shreveport, Louisiana, location of AI-Shreveport, LLC, a subsidiary of Android Industries.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–80,515 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers AI-Shreveport, LLC, a subsidiary of Android Industries, including on-site leased workers from Career Adventures, Inc., Shreveport, Louisiana, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 28, 2010, through November 22, 2013, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on November 22, 2011 through November 22, 2013, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA–W) number issued during the period of May 7, 2012 through May 11, 2012.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1- year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of May 7, 2012 through May 11, 2012. These determinations are available on the Department's Web site
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 8, 2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 8, 2012.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Employment and Training Administration is issuing this notice to announce the receipt of a “Certification of Non-Relocation and Market and Capacity Information Report” (Form 4279–2) for the following:
All interested parties may submit comments in writing no later than June 12, 2012. Copies of adverse comments received will be forwarded to the applicant noted above.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Anthony D. Dais, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S–4231, Washington, DC 20210; or email
Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number (202) 693–2784 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as established under 29 CFR part 75, authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture to make or guarantee loans or grants to finance industrial and business activities in rural areas. The Secretary of Labor must review the application for financial assistance for the purpose of certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture that the assistance is not calculated, or likely, to result in: (a) A transfer of any employment or business activity from one area to another by the loan applicant's business operation; or, (b) An increase in the production of goods, materials, services, or facilities in an area where there is not sufficient demand to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive enterprises unless the financial assistance will not have an adverse impact on existing competitive enterprises in the area. The Employment and Training Administration within the Department of Labor is responsible for the review and certification process. Comments should address the two bases for certification and, if possible, provide data to assist in the analysis of these issues.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of public meeting.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) invites interested parties to participate in an informal stakeholder meeting on establishing definitions and measures to determine whether OSHA-approved State Plans for occupational safety and health (State Plans) are at least as effective as the Federal OSHA program as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum to gather information and ideas on key outcome and activity based indicators and how OSHA can use such indicators to assess the effectiveness of State Plans.
The date for the stakeholder meeting is June 25, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. eastern standard time, in Washington, DC. The deadline for registration to attend or participate in the meeting and to submit written comments is June 11, 2012.
The meeting will be held in the Francis Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3437, at 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210. The nearest Metro station is Judiciary Square (Red Line). Photo ID is required to enter the building.
The meeting will last 3 hours, and be limited to approximately 20 participants. OSHA will do its best to accommodate all persons who wish to participate. OSHA encourages persons and groups having similar interests to consolidate their information and participate through a single representative. Members of the general public may observe, but not participate in, the meetings as space permits. OSHA staff will be present to take part in the discussions.
OSHA staff will manage registration of participants and observers and logistics for the meeting. A transcription of the meeting will be available for review at
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“the Act”) created OSHA “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions * * *.” The Act also encourages states to develop and operate their own workplace safety and health plans. Once OSHA approves a State Plan under Section 18(b) of the Act, OSHA may fund up to 50 percent of the state program's operating costs. Absent an approved State Plan, states are preempted from enforcing occupational safety and health standards. As a condition of OSHA approval, State Plans must provide standards and enforcement programs that are “at least as effective as” the federal OSHA program, in addition to voluntary compliance activities, and cover public sector employees. OSHA is responsible for the approval and monitoring of State Plans.
Currently there are 27 OSHA-approved state occupational safety and health plans. Twenty-two states and territories operate comprehensive State Plans covering the private sector and state and local government employers and employees. Five states and territories operate State Plans which cover only public sector employees. Additional information about state programs may be found at:
The Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association (OSHSPA), the organization of officials from each of the OSHA-approved state plans, serves as the link from the states to federal agencies that have occupational safety and health jurisdiction and to Congress. The group holds three meetings a year with federal OSHA, giving State Plans the opportunity to address common issues and share information. OSHSPA representatives have appeared before congressional committees and other bodies to report on job safety and health issues.
Following congressional hearings over the past several years concerning state plan effectiveness, and an audit by the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General in March 2011, OSHA increased the level of onsite monitoring of state plans and committed to further strengthening communication between federal OSHA and the State Plans. On October 29, 2009, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jordan Barab testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor about the Special Study that OSHA conducted of the Nevada State Plan and OSHA's plans for increasing oversight and conducting a baseline special evaluation in all other State Plans.
In accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA conducts an evaluation of the 27 approved State Plan States each fiscal year. Before FY 2009, the Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) reports primarily assessed the State Plans' progress toward achieving the performance goals established by their strategic and annual performance plans as well as certain mandated activity measures tied to the federal OSHA program or requirements of the Act. OSHA and the State Plans have outcome based measures that are part of their strategic plans, including reducing fatalities and injuries/illnesses. Additional information can be found at:
In FY 2009 the FAME reports were enhanced to include baseline special evaluations for each State Plan. The Enhanced FAME reports assessed the State Plans' progress toward achieving the performance goals established by their FY 2009 Annual Performance Plans and reviewed the effectiveness of programmatic areas related to enforcement activities through onsite audits and case file reviews. Each State Plan formally responded to the Enhanced FAME report and, as appropriate, developed a Corrective Action Plan that was approved by OSHA. The 2009 interim monitoring guidance, intended to assist OSHA regions in monitoring state plans and preparing the FAME reports, focused on enforcement activities and the Corrective Action Plans in addition to performance goal. It was revised for the FY 2010 and FY 2011 evaluations in response to concerns and issues raised both within OSHA and from State Plans.
In response to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report entitled “OSHA Has Not Determined If State OSH Programs Are At Least As Effective in Improving Workplace Safety and Health as Federal OSHA's Programs” (
The stakeholder meeting announced in this notice will be conducted in a manner that encourages participants to express individual views about how to determine whether OSHA-approved State Plans are as effective as the Federal OSHA program. Formal presentations by stakeholders are discouraged. The stakeholder meeting discussions will center on key indicators of effectiveness for Federal OSHA and OSHA-approved State Plans. The specific issues to be discussed will include the following:
1. OSHA's mission is “to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.”
(a) How would you define or describe the components that constitute an OSHA-approved State Plan that was “effective” in achieving this mission (e.g., funding, staffing, standards setting, strong enforcement program, strong consultation program, frequency of inspection, strong training and outreach programs, level of penalties etc.)?
(b) What outcome based measures would you use to determine whether OSHA-approved State Plans were achieving this mission (e.g., reductions in injury and illness rates, reductions in fatality rates, etc.)?
(c) What activity based measures would you use to determine whether OSHA-approved State Plans were achieving this mission (e.g., number of inspections conducted, number of violations issued, etc.)?
2. Should there be a core set of effectiveness measures that both OSHA and State Plan programs must meet?
3. What activity and outcome based measures would you use to assess effectiveness as it relates to the reduction of health hazards?
4. What activity and outcome based measures would you use to assess the effectiveness of the whistleblower program under Section 11(c) of the Act?
5. What indicators would you use to determine and monitor whether OSHA-approved State Plans are “at least as effective” as federal OSHA as outlined in Section 18(b) of the Act?
Representatives from the State Plans and OSHA have been working to develop a number of draft measures. OSHA will make these draft measures available on its Web site no less than
This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the
On March 4, 2009, TVA notified the NRC of its intent to transition the BFN facility to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805 fire protection program in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). Under this initiative, the NRC has exercised enforcement discretion for most fire protection noncompliances that are identified during the licensee's transition to NFPA 805, and for certain existing identified noncompliances that reasonably may be resolved at the completion of transition. NFPA 805 was adopted in 10 CFR 50.48(c) as an alternative fire protection rule, which is one path to resolving longstanding fire protection issues. To receive enforcement discretion for these noncompliances, the licensee must meet the specific criteria as stated in Section 9.1, “Enforcement Discretion for Certain Fire Protection Issues (10 CFR 50.48),” of the “NRC Enforcement Policy,” dated July 12, 2011, and submit an acceptable license amendment application by the date as specified in the licensee's commitment letter.
In a public meeting held on December 8, 2011 between the NRC and TVA, the licensee described its strategy for transitioning BFN to NFPA 805, which is intended to address the corrective actions for previously-cited fire protection violations along with other noncompliances identified during the transition period. TVA also notified the NRC that the development of a high-quality application will require more time than originally anticipated.
In a letter dated January 13, 2012, TVA reiterated the current transition strategy for BFN, and notified the NRC that TVA will submit its license amendment request (LAR) no later than March 29, 2013. The newly proposed submittal date is beyond the 3-year timeframe and, thus, exceeds TVA's enforcement discretion (i.e., until March 4, 2012) that was granted to BFN for certain fire protection noncompliances. However, if provided with adequate justification, the NRC may revise the submittal date through the use of an order that would continue the enforcement discretion provided in Section 9.1 of the Enforcement Policy.
In a letter dated February 17, 2012, TVA provided a list of planned fire risk reduction modifications at BFN and the associated planned implementation schedules. The NRC held a public teleconference with TVA on February 29, 2012, to discuss the planned modifications and their associated fire risk reductions, and TVA's schedule for completing its LAR. During the teleconference, TVA expressed a desire to continue enforcement discretion, and a willingness to commit to the new submittal date.
By letter dated March 9, 2012, the NRC requested that TVA provide additional justification for the proposed submittal date. TVA provided the requested information in a letter dated March 20, 2012. Based on the licensee maintaining acceptable compensatory measures and the NRC's review of the licensee's transition status, planned key activities to complete its NFPA 805 LAR, and planned fire risk reduction modifications, the NRC staff has determined that the licensee has provided adequate justification for revising the LAR submittal date.
Therefore, the NRC has determined that the date for submitting an acceptable NFPA 805 LAR should be extended. This Order is being issued to revise the original TVA LAR submittal date of March 4, 2012, until March 29, 2013. The new submittal date supports TVA's continued progress in activities related to the transition to NFPA 805 and the correction of other previously-identified fire protection noncompliances consistent with regulatory commitments provided in letters dated January 13 and February 17, 2012, and the activities described in the letter dated March 20, 2012.
TVA may, at any time, cease its transition to NFPA 805 and comply with the regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. As indicated in the Enforcement Policy, if TVA decides not to complete the transition to 10 CFR 50.48(c), it must submit a letter stating its intent to retain its existing licensing basis and withdrawing its letter of intent to comply with 10 CFR 50.48(c). If TVA fails to meet the new LAR submittal date and fails to comply with its existing licensing basis, the NRC will take appropriate enforcement action consistent with its Enforcement Policy.
On May 16, 2012, TVA consented to issuing this Order, as described in Section V below. TVA further agreed that this Order will be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its rights to a hearing.
Based on the licensee maintaining acceptable compensatory measures, and a review of the licensee's status and planned key activities, including the intended NFPA 805 modifications, the NRC has determined that the licensee has provided adequate justification for its commitment given in Section V, and, thus, for the extension of enforcement discretion. Because the licensee will perform modifications, with associated procedure updates, to reduce current fire risk in parallel with the development of their NFPA 805 LAR, the staff finds this acceptable to ensure public health and safety. Based on the above and TVA's consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, “Orders,”
A. TVA will submit an acceptable license amendment request for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, to adopt NFPA Standard 805 by no later
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 20 days of its publication in the
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for a 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 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 the 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 a hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in portable document format (PDF) in accordance with the 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 contracting the NRC Meta System Help Desk thorough 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 extension 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, MD 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 using 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 the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Texas Gamma Ray, LLC (TGR or Licensee), is the former holder of License No. 42–29303–01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the
This Confirmatory Order (Order) is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on April 23, 2012, in Arlington, Texas.
From June 4, 2009, through November 30, 2010, the NRC conducted a safety and security inspection of the use of byproduct material for industrial radiographic operations conducted under TGR's former NRC license. On July 20, 2009, the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI), Region IV, began an investigation (Case No. 04–2009–066) to determine if TGR willfully failed to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC by: (1) Not disclosing the locations of radioactive materials stored in excess of 180 days at temporary job site, and (2) not disclosing accurate information on the location of where radiography work was dispatched to the field. Also, the investigation was initiated to determine if TGR failed to comply with NRC security requirements, in violation of its license requirements. OI concluded the investigation on May 20, 2010. The NRC did not substantiate that willfulness was associated with the apparent violations.
By letter dated December 22, 2010 (ML103560822), the NRC transmitted the results of the inspection and investigation in NRC Inspection Report 030–37780/2009–001 and Investigation Report 4–2009–066 (ML103560822) to TGR. Enclosure 2 of the letter was not made publicly available because it contained Security-Related Information. Based on the results of the NRC inspection and the evidence developed during the investigation, three apparent violations of NRC requirements were identified. The apparent violations involved the storage of licensed material at a location in Rock Springs, Wyoming, that was not authorized on the license and failures to comply with NRC security requirements that are described in the Appendix to this Order (Appendix). The Appendix includes Security-Related Information; therefore, it is not publicly available.
On March 2, 2011, the NRC and TGR met in a predecisional enforcement conference (PEC) in Arlington, Texas. During the PEC, TGR provided supplemental information regarding two of the apparent violations. Because of the NRC's concern that willfulness may be associated with these two apparent violations, OI initiated a second investigation (Case No. 4–2011–034) on March 31, 2011. During the second investigation, concluded on November 18, 2011, OI did not identify additional apparent violations. However, based on the information developed during this second investigation, the NRC determined that a TGR radiographer deliberately failed to implement NRC security requirements and deliberately stored radioactive materials at a location not authorized by the license.
By letter dated February 23, 2012, the NRC informed TGR that the NRC was considering escalated enforcement action for the apparent violations. The NRC offered TGR the opportunity to respond in writing, request a PEC, or request alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the NRC in an attempt to resolve issues associated with this matter. In response, on March 5, 2012, TGR requested ADR to resolve this matter with the NRC.
On April 23, 2012, the NRC and TGR representatives met in an ADR session with a professional mediator, arranged through the Cornell University Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the dispute. This Confirmatory Order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process.
In response to the NRC's offer, Texas Gamma Ray, LLC (TGR), requested use of the NRC ADR process to resolve differences it had with the NRC. During that ADR session, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. The elements of that preliminary agreement are described below, except for those portions of the agreement that include Security-Related Information and, therefore, are not publicly available. The security-related elements of the agreement, as well as those portions of this Order that address those security-related elements, are described in the Appendix to this Order. The following description of the preliminary ADR agreement, and the required actions described in Section V of this Order
The NRC recognizes the corrective actions, associated with the apparent violations that TGR has already implemented, which include:
• Retrieving the licensed material from Wyoming and transferring it to a site in Texas authorized for storage by the State of Texas.
• Revising internal procedures to require:
• A security-related provision that is described in the Appendix to this Order;
• A security-related provision that is described in the Appendix to this Order; and
• The radiation safety officer's (RSO) written approval prior to storing licensed material at temporary job sites and other sites not listed on a specific materials license.
• Requiring the RSO's approval for storing licensed material and documenting it on a “Storage Approval Form,” which includes:
• A security-related item that is described in the Appendix to this Order;
• A security-related item that is described in the Appendix to this Order;
• A security-related item that is described in the Appendix to this Order;
• Verification that the vault is suitable for storage of licensed material;
• Letter from property owner;
• Approval of facility for storage by a regulatory agency;
• Verification that a calculation of public dose has been performed; and
• The RSO's signature.
• Training all radiographers on the new procedures.
Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, has also agreed to take the following corrective actions to address the apparent violations:
A. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive training program for employees conducting licensed activities (radiographic operations or radiography). The goal of this program is to conduct licensed operations safely and deter future willful violations by ensuring that its employees understand the importance that the NRC places on violations associated with deliberate misconduct as well as violations caused by careless disregard. The training program will consist of training for all current and newly hired employees performing licensed activities and will provide for annual refresher training. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will complete the following activities in support of the training program:
1.
• Within 90 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, TGR will conduct a safety stand-down (short-term training) to discuss the importance of safely conducting licensed activities, including the concept of a healthy safety culture, willfulness, security of licensed material, and ethics.
• Within 60 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, TGR will contract with an external contractor to provide comprehensive training to all of its current employees who are engaged in licensed activities (up to and including the company president) on what is meant by willfulness (careless disregard and deliberate misconduct), the potential enforcement sanctions that the NRC may take against employees who engage in deliberate misconduct, and the NRC's policy statement on safety culture.
• Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will submit for NRC review and approval, the resume of the contractor recommended to perform the training, at least 15 days prior to the time that TGR intends to execute a contract with the external training contractor.
• At least 15 days prior to the start of the training, but no later than 30 days after executing the contract with the external training contractor, TGR will submit for NRC review and approval an outline of the topics to be covered during this training session and a copy of a typical examination and the correct answers. The topics in section A.2 of this order will be included in this training.
• Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, must complete the comprehensive training of TGR management within 150 days of the NRC's approval of the outline of course topics.
• Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, must complete the comprehensive training of employees within 360 days of the NRC's approval of the outline of course topics.
• Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will assess the effectiveness of the comprehensive training through written testing. Any employee not passing the test will receive remedial training and will be re-tested.
• Within 30 days of the completion of the comprehensive training, TGR will provide to the NRC: (1) A letter stating that the training as specified above has been completed and (2) the results of the employee testing process.
2.
• A discussion of the NRC's policy statement on safety culture (76 FR 34773) and TGR management's support of the policy. As part of this training, employees must be provided a copy of NUREG/BR–0500, “Safety Culture Policy Statement.” TGR will provide a letter from the company president to each employee regarding company expectations concerning 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 30.10, and safety and security issues; or issue a company policy statement on these topics;
• A security-related topic that is described in the Appendix;
• A security-related topic that is described in the Appendix;
• A security-related topic that is described in the Appendix;
• A discussion on the importance of understanding and following TGR's internal procedures and regulatory requirements applicable to radiographic operations;
• A discussion on when to suspend work activities and verify whether specific circumstances allow for implementing corrective actions and resuming work activities or stopping work activities in order to protect the health and safety of workers and members of the public;
• A discussion of the elements of willfulness discussed in Chapter 6 of the NRC Enforcement Manual, and examples of enforcement actions that the NRC has taken against individuals. These actions are publicly available on the NRC's Web site;
• The requirements contained in 10 CFR 30.9,
• A discussion of past radiography events that have resulted in overexposures to individuals, including the health effects of such overexposures.
3.
B. Within 120 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, TGR will develop and submit for NRC review and approval the following procedures:
1. A procedure that provides details on how TGR management and the corporate radiation safety officer (RSO) will provide oversight of assistant and site RSOs.
2. A procedure for conducting field audits of security-related requirements at TGR field offices and as being implemented by radiography crews.
• The audits must be unannounced to the field offices and radiography crews.
• The audits must include a review to establish that radioactive sources and devices are properly stored and secured at authorized locations and at temporary job sites.
• A security-related provision that is described in the Appendix to this Order.
• The procedure must contain the elements reviewed during the audit.
• Records of audits and audit findings shall be maintained for 5 years and made available to the NRC, if requested. Audit records will contain the following information:
• Date of audit;
• Names of people who conducted the audit;
• Names of people contacted by the auditor;
• Audit findings and corrective actions; and
• Follow-up, if any.
C. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $7,000. This civil penalty shall be made in equal quarterly payments of $1,750 each. The first payment shall be made within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order. The remaining three payments shall be made in equal payments each quarter, thereafter.
On May 14, 2012, TGR consented to issuing this Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. TGR further agreed that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing.
Since Texas Gamma Ray, LLC (TGR), has agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Item III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Confirmatory Order.
I find that TGR's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that the Licensee's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and TGR's consent, this Confirmatory Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 20, 30, 34, and 150
A. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive training program for employees conducting licensed activities (radiographic operations or radiography). The goal of this program is to conduct licensed operations safely and deter future willful violations by ensuring that its employees understand the importance that the NRC places on violations associated with deliberate misconduct as well as violations caused by careless disregard. The training program will consist of training for all current and newly hired employees performing licensed activities and will provide for annual refresher training. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will complete the following activities in support of the training program:
1.
a. Within 90 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, TGR will conduct a safety stand-down (short-term training) to discuss the importance of safely conducting licensed activities including the concept of a healthy safety culture, willfulness, security of licensed material, and ethics.
b. Within 60 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, TGR will contract with an external contractor to provide comprehensive training to all of its current employees who are engaged in licensed activities (up to and including the company president) on what is meant by willfulness (careless disregard and deliberate misconduct), the potential enforcement sanctions that the NRC may take against employees who engage in deliberate misconduct, and the NRC's policy statement on safety culture.
c. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will submit for NRC review and approval, the resume of the contractor recommended to perform the training, at least 15 days prior to the time that TGR intends to execute a contract with the external training contractor.
d. At least 15 days prior to the start of the training, but no later than 30 days after executing the contract with the external training contractor, TGR will submit for NRC review and approval an outline of the topics to be covered during this training session and a copy of a typical examination and the correct answers. The topics in section A.2 of this order will be included in this training.
e. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, must complete the comprehensive training of TGR management within 150 days of the NRC's approval of the outline of course topics.
f. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, must complete the comprehensive training of employees within 360 days of the NRC's approval of the outline of course topics.
g. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will assess the effectiveness of the training through written testing. Any employee not passing the test will receive remedial training and will be re-tested.
h. Within 30 days of the completion of the comprehensive training, TGR will provide to the NRC: (1) a letter stating that the training as specified above has been completed and (2) the results of the employee testing process.
2.
a. A discussion of the NRC's policy statement on safety culture (79 FR 34773) and TGR management's support of the policy. As part of this training, employees must be provided a copy of NUREG/BR–0500, “Safety Culture Policy Statement.” Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, will provide a letter from the company president to each employee regarding company expectations concerning 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 30.10, and safety and security issues; or issue a company policy statement on these topics;
b. A security-related topic that is described in the Appendix;
c. A security-related topic that is described in the Appendix;
d. A security-related topic that is described in the Appendix;
e. A discussion on the importance of understanding and following TGR's internal procedures and regulatory requirements applicable to radiographic operations;
f. A discussion on when to suspend work activities and verify whether specific circumstances allow for implementing corrective actions and resuming work activities or stopping work activities in order to protect the health and safety of workers and members of the public;
g. A discussion of the elements of willfulness discussed in Chapter 6 of the NRC Enforcement Manual, and examples of enforcement actions that the NRC has taken against individuals. These actions are publicly available on the NRC's Web site;
h. The requirements contained in 10 CFR 30.9,
i. A discussion of past radiography events that have resulted in overexposures to individuals, including the health effects of such overexposures.
3.
B. Within 120 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, TGR will develop and submit for NRC review and approval the following procedures:
1. A procedure that provides details on how TGR management and the corporate radiation safety officer (RSO) will provide oversight of assistant and site RSOs.
2. A procedure for conducting field audits of security-related requirements at TGR field offices and as being implemented by radiography crews.
a. The audits must be unannounced to the field offices and radiography crews.
b. The audits must include a review to establish that radioactive sources and devices are properly stored and secured at authorized locations and at temporary job sites.
c. A security-related provision that is described in the Appendix to this Order.
d. The procedure must contain the elements reviewed during the audit.
e. Records of audits and audit findings shall be maintained for 5 years and made available to the NRC, if requested. Audit records will contain the following information:
• Date of audit;
• Name of person(s) who conducted the audit;
• Names of persons contacted by the auditor(s);
• Audit findings and corrective actions; and
• Follow-up, if any.
C. Texas Gamma Ray, LLC, shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $7,000. This civil penalty shall be made in equal quarterly payments of $1,750 each. The first payment shall be made within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order. The remaining three payments shall be made in equal payments each quarter, thereafter.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by TGR of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than TGR, may request a hearing within 20 days of its publication in the
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for a 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 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 the 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 a hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in portable document format (PDF) in accordance with the 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 contracting the NRC Meta System Help Desk thorough 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 extension 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,
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person (other than TGR) requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days from the date this Confirmatory Order is published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from May 16 to May 29, 2012. The last biweekly notice was published on May 15, 2012 (77 FR 28626).
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
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–0116 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 is publicly available, by the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2012–0116 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 in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC posts 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 in
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 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
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 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.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
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.
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, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the 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's 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
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the 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 the 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 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 the 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 the date of publication of this notice. 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).
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise TS SR 4.7.10 to conform the TSs to the revised snubber program. Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) except where the NRC has granted specific written relief, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), or authorized alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3).
Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated operable by performance of a program for examination, testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to TS ACTION 3.7.10 for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.10. Therefore, the proposed changes do not adversely affect plant operations, design functions or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and components to perform their design functions. The consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment. The proposed changes do not change the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) except where the NRC has granted specific written relief, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), or authorized alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated operable by performance of a program for examination, testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to TS ACTION 3.7.10 for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.10.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 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.
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) postulated accidents.
During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of the steam generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the H* distance will be maintained. 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 [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Steam Generator Tubes,” (Reference 25) 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[n] 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[n] SGTR.
The consequences of a steam line break (SLB) are also not significantly affected by
Primary-to-secondary leakage from tube degradation in the tubesheet area during the limiting accident (i.e., a[n] SLB) 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 2.49 for Millstone Power Station Unit 3 (MPS3), for a postulated SLB/FLB, has been calculated as shown in Table RA124–2 (Revised Table 9–7) of Reference 19. Specifically, for the condition monitoring (CM) assessment, the component of leakage from the prior cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of 2.49 and added to the total leakage from any other source and compared to the allowable accident induced leakage limit. For the operational assessment (OA), 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 2.49 and compared to the observed operational leakage.
The probability of a[n] SLB is unaffected by the potential failure of a steam generator tube as the failure of the tube is not an initiator for a[n] SLB event. SLB 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. The TS operational leak rate is 150 gpd (0.1 gpm) through any one steam generator. Consequently, there is significant margin between accident leakage and allowable operational leakage. The SLB/FLB leak rate ratio is only 2.49 resulting in significant margin between the conservatively estimated accident leakage and the allowable accident leakage (1.0 gpm).
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 [Nuclear Energy Institute] 97–06, Revision 3, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines” (Reference 1) and RG 1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes” (Reference 25), 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission for meeting 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[n] SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube wall degradation the probability and consequences of a[n] 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 (ASME) 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 4.0 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.
A. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Implementation of the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The DGs and their associated emergency buses function as accident mitigators. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the operational limits or the design of the electrical power systems (particularly the emergency power systems) or change the function or operation of plant equipment or affect the response of that equipment when called upon to operate.
The proposed changes to TS 3.8.3 Condition D are consistent with STS 3.8.3 Condition E, and they still ensure the DGs' ability to fulfill their safety-related function.
Thus, based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
B. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a change in the operational limits or the design capabilities of the emergency electrical power systems. The proposed changes do not change the function or operation of plant equipment or introduce any new failure mechanisms. The technical evaluation that supports this License Amendment Request included a review of the DG starting air system capability to which these changes are bounded. The proposed changes do not introduce any new or different types of failure mechanisms; plant equipment will continue to respond as designed and analyzed.
C. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system and the containment system will not be adversely impacted by the proposed changes since the ability of the DGs to mitigate an analyzed accident has not been adversely impacted by the proposed changes.
Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the 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.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The AF system is normally in standby and a failure of the AF system during normal operations or emergency operations cannot initiate any of the accidents previously evaluated. The use of the AF Train A unit cross-tie does not interface with the reactor coolant system, containment, or engineered safeguards features in such a way as to be a precursor or initiator for an accident previously evaluated. The AF system is capable of performing the safety-related functions required to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents. Conditions which impose safety-related performance requirements on the design of the AF system include the following: loss of main feedwater transient, secondary system pipe breaks, loss of all a-c power, loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), and cooldown (after expected transients, accidents, and other scenarios). For the non-accident unit, controls ensure compliance with existing TS conditions that ensure one train remains operable and the condition exists for a limited time. The AF system will continue to be used in compliance with the existing conditions in the TS. Since the AF system is assured of performing its intended design function in mitigating the effects of design basis accidents, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR will not be increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Failures of the AF system cannot initiate an accident. The proposed use of an AF Train A unit cross-tie will not interface with the reactor coolant system, containment, or engineered safeguards features. Failure modes and effects described in the UFSAR are not impacted. The electrical power supplies and AF system pumps will be maintained in design basis train alignments. Use of an AF Train A unit cross-tie will have no impact on the range of initiating events previously assessed. Thus, the accident analysis presented in the UFSAR is not impacted. The change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
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 proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is not reduced. Results of the existing UFSAR accident analysis are not impacted, and therefore the safety margins are not impacted. The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because the non-accident unit will be operated within existing TS conditions. For the non-accident unit, controls ensure compliance with existing TS conditions that ensure one train remains operable and the condition exists for a limited time. The AF Train A unit cross-tie is not a credited flow path in design basis or needed to meet a safety function. The AF Train A unit cross-tie is an additional strategy made available if a total loss of secondary heat sink should occur. The AF Train A unit cross-tie would be initiated if the feed flow to at least one SG cannot be verified during the event, and an appropriate SG level cannot be maintained to regain secondary heat sink. As such, the AF Train A unit cross-tie is an improvement in emergency procedures for a total loss of heat sink, and this improves probabilistic risk assessment. The proposed change, therefore, does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
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 requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
The proposed amendment deletes the current TS 5.5.9.c.2 and TS 5.5.9.f.2 allowance to use ABB Combustion Engineering Inc. TIG welded sleeves as a steam generator tube repair method. There are no ABB Combustion Engineering Inc. (Westinghouse) TIG-welded sleeves currently installed in the Braidwood Station, Unit 2, and Byron Station, Unit 2, SGs. EGC has been informed by the sleeve vendor that TIG welded sleeves are no longer commercially available. As a result of this change, there are no available SG tube repair methods for Braidwood Station or Byron Station. The proposed amendment deletes TS 5.5.9.f, TS 5.5.9.c.2, TS 5.5.9.c.3, and references to tube repair and sleeves in various TS. Removing the ability for tube repair methods is conservative; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
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 requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to the Seabrook Station emergency plan do not impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes will not impact the accident analysis. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes revise emergency action levels (EAL), which establish the thresholds for placing the plant in an emergency classification. EALs are not initiators of any accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are associated with the EALs and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications or the operating license. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
The revised EALs provide more appropriate and accurate criteria for determining protective measures that should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety. The emergency plan will continue to activate an emergency response commensurate with the extent of degradation of plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves NSHC.
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) proposes to amend the VEGP TS. Evaluations pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92 showing that the proposed changes do not involve significant hazards considerations are provided for each change.
However, due to the significant number of changes associated with the upgrade effort, SNC has grouped similar changes into categories to facilitate the significant hazards evaluations required by 10 CFR 50.92. Generic significant hazards evaluations are provided for the Administrative, More Restrictive, Relocation, and Detail Removed categories. Each individual Less Restrictive change is addressed by a specific significant hazards evaluation. Due to the large volume of changes, obvious editorial or administrative changes (e.g., formatting, page rolls, punctuation, etc.) have not always received an explicit discussion, but are considered to be addressed by the applicable generic significant hazards evaluation for Administrative changes.
Each significant change to the TS is marked-up on the appropriate page in Enclosure 2 of its submittal and assigned a reference number reflective of the significant hazards evaluation type. The reference number assigned to a change is used in the Discussion of Change (DOC) in Enclosure 1 of its submittal which provides a detailed description (basis) for each change supporting the applicable significant hazards evaluation in Enclosure 6 of its submittal.
SNC proposes to amend the VEGP Units 3 and 4, Technical Specifications. SNC has evaluated each of the proposed TS changes identified as Administrative in accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. This significant hazards consideration is applicable to each Administrative change identified in Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 of its submittal.
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve reformatting, renumbering, and rewording the TS. The reformatting, renumbering, and rewording process involves no technical changes to the TS. As such, these changes are administrative in nature and do not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes will not impose any new or different requirements, or eliminate any existing requirements.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not reduce a margin of safety because the changes have no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. These changes are administrative in nature. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This generic category include changes that impose additional requirements, decrease allowed outage times, increase the Frequency of Surveillances, impose additional Surveillances, increase the scope of Specifications to include additional plant equipment, broaden the Applicability of Specifications, or provide additional actions. These changes have been evaluated to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Changes to the TS requirements categorized as More Restrictive are annotated with an “M” in the Enclosure 1 DOC and Enclosure 2 markup of its submittal.
SNC proposes to amend the VEGP Units 3 and 4 TS. SNC has evaluated each of the proposed TS changes identified as More Restrictive in accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. This significant hazards consideration is applicable to each More Restrictive change identified in Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 of its submittal.
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes provide more stringent TS requirements. These more stringent requirements do not result in operations that significantly increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event, and do not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. The more restrictive requirements continue to ensure process variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes do impose different Technical Specification requirements. However, these changes are consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The imposition of more restrictive requirements either has no effect on or increases a margin of plant safety. As provided in the discussion of change, each change in this category is, by definition, providing additional restrictions to enhance plant safety. The changes maintain
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This generic category applies to changes that relocate entire TS Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCOs). A specific DOC for each TS identified for relocation is provided in Enclosure 1. This evaluation will be applicable to each of the changes identified with an “R” in the Enclosure 1 DOC and the associated Enclosure 2 markup of its submittal.
SNC has evaluated each of the proposed TS changes identified as Relocated Specifications in accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of Amendment,” and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. This significant hazards consideration is applicable to each Relocated Specification identified in Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 of its submittal.
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate LCOs for structures, systems, components, or variables that do not meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) for inclusion in TS. The affected structures, systems, components, or variables are not assumed to be initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient events. The requirements and Surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, or variables are proposed to be relocated from the TS to a licensee controlled document that is controlled by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. The proposed changes only reduce the level of regulatory control on these requirements. The level of regulatory control has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and adequate control of existing requirements will be maintained.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not reduce a margin of safety because they have no significant effect on any safety analyses assumptions, as indicated by the fact that the requirements do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 criteria for retention. In addition, the relocated requirements are moved without change, and any future changes to these requirements will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59.
NRC prior review and approval of changes to these relocated requirements, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, will no longer be required. There is no margin of safety attributed to NRC prior review and approval. However, the proposed changes are consistent with 10 CFR 50.36, which allows revising the TS to relocate these requirements and Surveillances to a licensee controlled document.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This generic category applies to changes that involve removing details out of the TS. These details are either supported by existing content in the TS Bases or the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or a commitment is made to add them to the TS Bases or FSAR. The removal of this information is considered to be less restrictive because it is no longer controlled by the TS change process. Typically, the information removed is descriptive in nature and its removal conforms to NUREG–1431 for format and content.
A specific DOC for each detail identified for removal is provided in Enclosure 1 of its submittal. This evaluation will be applicable to each of the changes identified with a “D” in the Enclosure 1 DOC and the associated Enclosure 2 markup of its submittal.
SNC proposes to amend the VEGP Units 3 and 4, Technical Specifications. SNC has evaluated each of the proposed TS changes identified as Detail Removed in accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. This significant hazards consideration is applicable to each Detail Removed change identified in Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 of its submittal.
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate certain details from the TS to other documents under regulatory control. The FSAR will be maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section VIII. The TS Bases are subject to the change control provisions in the Administrative Controls Chapter of the TS. Since any changes to these documents will be evaluated, no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and adequate control of the information will be maintained.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not reduce a margin of safety because they have no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. In addition, the details to be moved from the TS to other documents are not being changed. Since any future changes to these details will be evaluated under the applicable regulatory change control mechanism, no significant reduction in a margin of safety will be allowed. A significant reduction in a margin of safety is not associated with the elimination of the 10 CFR 50.90 requirement for NRC review and approval of future changes to the relocated details. Not including these details in the TS is consistent with NUREG–1431, issued by the NRC, which allows revising the TS to relocate these requirements to a licensee controlled document controlled by 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section VIII, or other TS controlled or regulation controlled documents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This category consists of technical changes which revise existing requirements such that more restoration time is provided, fewer compensatory measures are needed, surveillance requirements are deleted, or less restrictive surveillance requirements are required. This would also include requirements which are deleted from the TS (not relocated to other documents) and other technical changes that do not fit a generic category. These changes are evaluated individually.
Technical changes to the TS requirements categorized as “Less Restrictive” are identified with an “L” and an individual number in the Enclosure 1 DOC and Enclosure 2 markup of its submittal.
SNC proposes to amend the VEGP Units 3 and 4, Technical Specifications. SNC has evaluated each of the proposed technical changes identified as “Less Restrictive” individually in accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below.
L01 SNC proposes to amend TS 1.0, “Definitions,” by deleting the definition for Actuation Device Test. Reference to “overlap with the ACTUATION DEVICE TEST” that is cited in the definition of Actuation Logic Test is replaced with “overlap with the actuated device.”
Current Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.2.7 (“Perform ACTUATION DEVICE TEST”) and SR 3.3.2.8 (“Perform ACTUATION DEVICE TEST for squib valves”) are deleted from current TS 3.3.2 and Table 3.3.2–1, Function 26, Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Actuation. The equivalent requirement (using phrasing generally consistent with NUREG–1431) is included in individual Specifications for the actuated devices with the same 24 month Frequency as the deleted SRs. The impact of this reformatting is such that more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, actions would be applied when the associated device fails to meet the surveillance requirement. Also, current SR 3.3.2.9 is revised to eliminate the use of the Actuation Device Test defined term and replaced it with verification of actuation on an actual or simulated actuation signal.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change involves reformatting and revising the presentation of existing surveillance requirements (with no change in required system or device function), such that more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, actions would be applied when the device fails to meet the surveillance requirement. Revised surveillance requirement presentation and compliance with TS actions are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised surveillance requirements and actions are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing ones. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change reformats TS requirements such that more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, actions would be applied when the device fails to meet the surveillance requirement. However, the proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While certain actions for inoperability of actuated devices are made less restrictive by eliminating entry into Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Actuation and Instrumentation inoperability actions, no action is made less restrictive than currently approved for any associated actuated device inoperability. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L02 SNC proposes to amend current TS 5.6, “Reporting Requirements,” to delete TS 5.6.1, “Occupational Radiation Exposure Report,” and TS 5.6.4, “Monthly Operating Reports.” This change results in the renumbering of TS 5.6 sections, but does not revise technical or administrative requirements. SNC stated that the change is consistent with NRC approved Industry/TSTF Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–369, “Removal of Monthly Operating Report and Occupational Radiation Exposure Report,” Revision 1.
SNC has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination published on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 35067) as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP) for TSTF–369, Revision 1. SNC has concluded that the proposed determination presented in the notice is applicable to VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the determination is hereby incorporated by reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a).
L03 SNC proposes to amend TS to eliminate the use of the defined term “CORE ALTERATIONS” and incorporate changes reflected in TSTF–471–A.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates the use of the term “CORE ALTERATIONS,” all Required Actions requiring suspension of core alterations, and reference to core alterations in a surveillance requirement. With the exception of a fuel handling accident, core alterations are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Those revised Specifications which protect the initial conditions of a fuel handling accident also require the suspension of movement of irradiated fuel assemblies. This Required Action protects the initial conditions of a fuel handling accident and, therefore, suspension of all other core alterations is not required. Suspension of core alterations, except fuel handling, does not provide mitigation of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, eliminating the TS presentation of core alterations does not affect the initiators of the accidents previously evaluated and suspension of core alterations does not affect the mitigation of the accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Two events are postulated to occur in the plant conditions in which core alterations may be made: a fuel handling accident and a boron dilution incident. Suspending movement of irradiated fuel assemblies to prevent a fuel handling accident is retained as appropriate. As such, requiring the suspension of core alterations is an overly broad, redundant requirement that does not increase a margin of safety. Core alterations have no effect on a boron dilution incident. Core components are not involved in the creation or mitigation of a boron dilution incident and the shutdown margin (Mode 5) and boron concentration (Mode 6) limits are based on assuming the worst-case configuration of the core components.
Therefore, core alterations have no effect on a margin of safety related to a boron dilution incident. Therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L04 SNC proposes to amend TS, Section 1.3, “Completion Times,” Example 1.3–3 to eliminate the Required Action A.1 and Required Action B.1 second Completion Times, and to replace the discussion regarding second Completion Times with a new discussion. SNC also proposes to delete the second Completion Times associated with current TS 3.8.5, “Distribution Systems—Operating,” Required Actions A.1, B.1, C.1, and D.1.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates certain Completion Times from the Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
Therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L05 SNC proposes to amend TS to eliminate LCO 3.0.8.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Technical Specification actions to restore equipment to Operable and to monitor plant parameters are not initiators to any analyzed accident sequence. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS continues to ensure that plant equipment is capable of performing mitigative functions assumed by the accident analysis.
The proposed TS change does not involve any changes to SSCs and does not alter the method of operation or control of SSCs as described in the FSAR. The current assumptions in the safety analysis regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are unaffected by this change. No additional failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced and the likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the FSAR will not be affected by this change. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase because of this change.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. Any alteration in procedures will continue to ensure that the plant remains within analyzed limits, and no change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change does not alter the requirement to restore compliance with TS and to monitor plant parameter status for appropriate manual actions. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the plant response to analyzed events will continue to provide the margins of safety assumed by the analysis. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed.
As such, there is no functional change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L06 SNC proposes to amend TS 3.2.5 to eliminate the increased frequency of verifying core power distribution parameters when the On-line Power Distribution Monitoring System (OPDMS) alarms are inoperable. This change retains the normal 24-hour Frequency and eliminates the 12-
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
A TS frequency for monitoring plant parameters is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the FSAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS continues to ensure that initial conditions assumed in the accident analysis are maintained.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR and does not alter the method of operation or control of equipment as described in the FSAR. The current assumptions in the safety analysis regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are unaffected by this change. Plant equipment remains capable of performing mitigative functions assumed by the accident analysis. No additional failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced and the likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged. The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the FSAR will not be affected by this change. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase because of this change.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. Any alteration in procedures will continue to ensure that the plant remains within analyzed limits, and no change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change is acceptable because the OPDMS alarms do not impact a margin of safety. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the plant response to analyzed events will continue to provide the margins of safety assumed by the analysis. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed.
As such, there is no functional change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L07 SNC proposes to amend the TS 3.3.1, 3.3.4, and 3.4.5 by replacing the TS Required Actions requiring the reactor trip breakers (RTBs) to be opened with two Required Actions: one Required Action states “Initiate action to fully insert all rods,” and the other Required Action states “Place the Plant Control System in a condition incapable of rod withdrawal.” For consistency, TS Applicabilities associated with RTB position are also being revised. Applicabilities including “RTBs closed” are revised to state “Plant Control System capable of rod withdrawal or one or more rods not fully inserted.” Conversely, Applicabilities including “RTBs open” are revised to state “With Plant Control System incapable of rod withdrawal and all rods fully inserted.”
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR and does not alter the method of operation or control of equipment as described in the FSAR. The current assumptions in the safety analysis regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are unaffected by this change. Plant equipment remains capable of performing mitigative functions assumed by the accident analysis. However, the change involves allowing methods of compliance other than establishing or verifying RTB open or closed status to determine the condition of the capability of the Plant Control System to allow or inhibit rod withdrawal and the status of all rods inserted or not. The method of establishing this status is not an accident initiator nor involved with mitigation of the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does allow methods of compliance other than establishing or verifying RTB open or closed status; however, RTB open or closed status will continue to be one appropriate and viable method of establishing and verifying applicable plant conditions. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While certain interlocks depend on RTB open or close status, these interlocks and the association with RTB is not revised. When those interlocks are required, the position of RTBs will continue to dictate the appropriate protection system response. Allowing alternate methods of establishing or verifying the condition of the capability of the Plant Control System to allow or inhibit rod withdrawal and the status of all rods inserted or not, does not impact any safety analysis assumption or plant response to an analyzed event.
As such, there is no functional change to the required plant conditions, and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L08 SNC proposes to amend the TS by deleting current TS 3.3.1, Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation, Required Actions D.1.1, D.2.1, and D.2.2 applicable to inoperable Power Range Neutron Flux channels.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. Overly restrictive and inappropriate Required Actions are being deleted since adequate compensatory measures already address the potential impact on radial power monitoring and the appropriate compensatory and mitigative actions in the event the RTS function is degraded for the Power Range Neutron Flux function. Additionally, the Surveillances for TS 3.2.4, Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio (QPTR),
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates overly restrictive and inappropriate Required Actions. However, the proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no such effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While certain actions for inoperability of actuated devices are made less restrictive by eliminating a potentially unnecessary power reduction, and actions that could not be performed, no action is made less restrictive than currently approved for similar channel inoperability.
Therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L09 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,” Source Range Neutron Flux Actions in Mode 2 for one and two inoperable channels. The change allows for placing inoperable channels in bypass and/or trip thereby allowing continued operation.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. However, the change involves providing actions allowing bypassing and/or tripping one or two inoperable Source Range Neutron Flux channels. Required Actions are not an accident initiator nor credited with mitigation of the consequences of an accident. The actions continue to assure operation consistent with the design provisions and within the assumptions of the safety analysis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves certain less restrictive actions; however, these actions are consistent with the design provisions and with currently approved actions for other inoperable automatic RTS actuation functions. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no such effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the change involves less restrictive actions, these actions are consistent with the design provisions and with currently approved actions for other inoperable automatic RTS actuation Functions. These actions do not result in any conflict with the assumptions in the safety analyses and licensing basis.
As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L10 SNC proposes to amend the TS, as follows:
• TS 3.1.8 “PHYSICS TESTS Exceptions—MODE 2,” is revised to delete the listing of current Function 16.b for TS 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation”;
• Current TS 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,” Table 3.3.1–1, Function 16, Reactor Trip System Interlocks requirements are removed;
• Current TS 3.3.1 Action M is deleted;
• Current TS 3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,” Table 3.3.2–1, Function 18, ESFAS Interlocks (with the exception of Table 3.3.2–1, Function 18.b, Reactor Trip, P–4) requirements are removed; and
• Current TS 3.3.2 Action J is deleted.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The TS RTS and ESFAS actuation functions explicitly retained in TS are those assumed to actuate in the safety analysis. The associated interlocks are necessary support functions for Operability of these TS required RTS and ESFAS functions. The removal of explicit interlock functions does not impact the design-required actuation function. Plant equipment remains capable of performing preventative and mitigative functions assumed by the accident analysis. However, the change involves removing explicit requirements, including actions that lead to reestablishing operability of the assumed actuation functions; implicitly these requirements are maintained and the actions remain viable for reestablishing operability. Since the requirements for the safety function Operability remains unchanged, removing the explicit presentation of detail is not an accident initiator nor involved with mitigation of the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the presentation of TS RTS and ESFAS actuation functions moves the associated interlocks from explicit treatment to becoming an implicit support system feature, the function continues to be required as necessary to support associated TS actuation functions. In doing so, certain actions for inoperability of interlocks are made more restrictive by now entering actions specific to the supported function's inoperability which have shorter Completion Times. However those actions are consistent with those currently approved for inoperability of that function.
As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L11 SNC proposes to amend TS 3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,” to delete:
• Current Table 3.3.1–1, Function 5, Source Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint, third row for that function including Applicability set “3
• Current Table 3.3.1–1, Footnote (e); and
• Current Action R.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change involves removing certain actions that apply during inoperability of all four source range channels to provide indication. However, requirements and associated Required Actions continue to apply to source range channels in separate TS. The Required Actions removed are not accident initiators nor involved with mitigation of the consequences of an accident. The remaining requirements and actions continue to assure operation within the assumptions of the safety analysis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves removing certain actions for inoperability of all four source range channels; however, this change does not result in any conflict with the assumptions in the safety analyses and licensing basis. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no such effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While certain actions for inoperability of all four source range channels to indicate are removed, requirements and associated Required Actions continue to apply to source range channels in a separate TS. When all source range monitoring channels are inoperable, the remaining actions continue to assure operation within safety analysis assumptions. These actions are consistent with the actions presented in the NUREG–1431.
As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L12 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,” Actions related to functions that result in valve isolation actuations. Current TS 3.3.2 Actions P, Q, R, S, T, and Z, are revised to “Declare affected isolation valve(s) inoperable.” Additionally, the following current Table 3.3.2–1 Applicability Footnotes are deleted:
• (e) Not applicable for valve isolation functions whose associated flow path is isolated;
• (h) Not applicable if all main steam isolation valves (MSIVs) are closed; and
• (i) Not applicable when the startup feedwater flow paths are isolated.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The less restrictive Required Actions are acceptable based on the fact that the new actions are the appropriate actions for the actuated equipment. Required Actions are not an accident initiator nor credited with mitigation of the consequences of an accident. The actions continue to assure operation within the assumptions of the safety analysis and are consistent with approved actions for the actuated equipment.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves certain less restrictive actions; however, the actions continue to assure operation within the assumptions of the safety analysis and are consistent with approved actions for the actuated equipment. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the change involves less restrictive actions, the actions are consistent with approved actions for the actuated equipment. These actions do not result in any conflict with the assumptions in the safety analyses and licensing basis.
As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L13 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.3.3, “Post Accident Monitoring (PAM) Instrumentation,” as follows:
• Function 12 is revised from “Passive Residual Heat Removal (PRHR) Flow and PRHR Outlet Temperature,” to “Passive Residual Heat Removal (PRHR) Heat Removal.” In addition, the Required Channels/Divisions column is revised from “2 flow & 1 temperature,” to “2.”
• Function 17 is revised from “Passive Containment Cooling System (PCS) Storage Tank Level and PCS Flow,” to “Passive Containment Cooling System (PCS) Heat Removal.” In addition, the Required Channels/Divisions column is revised from “2 level & 1 flow,” to “2.”
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change reduces the number of required Function 12 and Function 17 channels from three to two. Requiring the minimum of two redundant channels is consistent with NUREG–1431 requirements for meeting Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97 PAM redundancy requirements. The change also relocates the details of the specific channels designed to satisfy the PAM requirements to the associated Bases. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. PAM functions are not initiators of analyzed events and therefore the revised requirements do not result in operations that significantly increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event. The PAM function affected by this change is designed to accommodate single failure to support post-accident monitoring. The change reduces TS requirements on excess required channels; however, single failure redundancy continues to be required. Thus, the proposed change does not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. The less restrictive requirements continue to ensure process variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
The TS Bases will be maintained in accordance with the change control provisions of the TS Bases Control Program described in TS 5.5.6. Because any change to the TS Bases will be evaluated, no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. In addition, the details being moved from the current TS to the TS Bases are not being changed. NRC prior review and approval of changes to these relocated requirements, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, will no longer be required. Future change to these details will be evaluated under the applicable regulatory change control mechanism. There is no margin of safety attributed to NRC prior review and approval; therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L14 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.3.5, “Diverse Actuation System (DAS) Manual Controls,” Table 3.3.5–1, “DAS Manual Controls,” footnote b; current TS 3.6.7, “Passive Containment Cooling System (PCS)—Shutdown,” Applicability; and current TS 3.7.9, “Fuel Storage Pool Makeup Water Sources,” LCO Notes 1, 2, and 3; Applicability, Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.9.1 Note, SR 3.7.9.2 Note, SR 3.7.9.3 Note, and SR 3.7.9.4 Note by deleting “calculated” with respect to decay heat.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed change provides less stringent TS requirements for the facility by not expressly specifying the method of determining the decay heat value. These less stringent requirements do not result in operations that significantly increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event, and do not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. The less restrictive requirements continue to ensure process variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. Eliminating the imposition of single method of determining the decay heat value has no effect on or a margin of plant safety. “Calculating” the decay heat value remains a viable option. The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses and licensing basis. As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L15 SNC proposes to amend TS 3.4.8, “Minimum [Reactor Coolant System] RCS Flow,” SR 3.4.8.1 from “Verify that at least one [Reactor Coolant Pump] RCP is in operation at ≥ 10% rated speed or equivalent,” to “Verify that at least one RCP is in operation with total flow through the core ≥ 3,000 gpm.”
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change involves revising the acceptance criteria of an existing surveillance requirement with no change in required system or device function. Surveillance acceptance criteria are not accident initiators nor involved with mitigation of the consequences of any accident. The proposed acceptance criteria ensure that the applicable analysis input assumptions are preserved. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the acceptance criteria of an existing surveillance requirement. However, the proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the surveillance requirement acceptance criteria is made less restrictive by removal of design margin that accounts for minimizing stress and wear, and increasing equipment life, and the expected operating limit on minimum RCP speed, this margin is more appropriately maintained in the design and in operating and surveillance procedures.
Therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L16 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.4.10, “RCS Specific Activity,” Actions by deleting Required Action B.1, which requires “Perform SR 3.4.10.2,” within 4 hours.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed change provides less stringent TS actions for the facility. However, the less restrictive requirements continue to ensure process variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis. The performance of SR 3.4.10.2 is not related to an accident initiator nor credited with mitigation of the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses and licensing basis. The result of performing the additional surveillance does not provide any additional margin of safety; as such, eliminating the Required Action for performing the additional surveillance does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L17 SNC proposes to amend TS as follows:
1. Current TS 3.5.2, “Core Makeup Tanks (CMTs)—Operating,” Condition D is revised from “One CMT inoperable due to presence of noncondensible gases in one high point vent,” to “One CMT inlet line with noncondensible gas volume not within limit.”
2. Current TS 3.5.2, Required Action D.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases,” to “Restore CMT inlet line noncondensible gas volume to within limit.”
3. Current TS 3.5.2, SR 3.5.2.4 is revised from “Verify the volume of noncondensible gases in each CMT inlet line has not caused the high point water level to drop below the sensor,” to “Verify the volume of noncondensible gases in each CMT inlet line is within limit.”
4. Current TS 3.5.4, “Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger (PRHR HX)—Operating,” Condition C is revised from “Presence of noncondensible gases in the high point vent,” to “PRHR HX inlet line noncondensible gas volume not within limit.”
5. Current TS 3.5.4, Required Action C.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases,” to “Restore PRHR HX inlet line noncondensible gas volume to within limit.”
6. Current TS 3.5.4, SR 3.5.4.3 is revised from “Verify the volume of noncondensible gases in the PRHR HX inlet line has not caused the high point water level to drop below the sensor,” to “Verify the volume of noncondensible gases in the PRHR HX inlet line is within limit.”
7. Current TS 3.5.5, “Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger (PRHR HX)—Shutdown, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Intact,” Condition C is revised from “Presence of noncondensible gases in the high point vent,” to “PRHR HX inlet line noncondensible gas volume not within limit.”
8. Current TS 3.5.5, Required Action C.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases,” to “Restore PRHR HX inlet line noncondensible gas volume to within limit.”
9. Current TS 3.5.6, “In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST)—Operating,” Condition B is revised from “One IRWST injection line inoperable due to presence of noncondensible gases in one high point vent,” to “One IRWST injection flow path with noncondensible gas volume in one squib valve outlet line pipe stub not within limit.”
10. Current TS 3.5.6, Required Action B.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases,” to “Restore noncondensible gas volume in squib valve outlet line pipe stub to within limit.”
11. Current TS 3.5.6, Condition C is revised from “One IRWST injection line inoperable due to presence of noncondensible gases in both high point vents,” to “One IRWST injection flow path with noncondensible gas volume in both squib valve outlet line pipe stubs not within limit.”
12. Current TS 3.5.6, Required Action C.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases from one high point vent,” to “Restore one squib valve outlet line pipe stub noncondensible gas volume to within limit.”
13. Current TS 3.5.6, SR 3.5.6.3 is revised from “Verify the volume of noncondensible gases in each of the four IRWST injection squib valve outlet line pipe stubs has not caused the high-point water level to drop below the sensor,” to “Verify the volume of noncondensible gases in each of the four IRWST injection squib valve outlet line pipe stubs is within limit.”
14. Current TS 3.5.7, “In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST)—Shutdown, MODE 5,” Condition B is revised from “Required IRWST injection line inoperable due to presence of noncondensible gases in one high point vent,” to “Required IRWST injection flow path with noncondensible gas volume in one squib valve outlet line pipe stub not within limit.”
15. Current TS 3.5.7, Required Action B.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases,” to “Restore noncondensible gas volume in squib valve outlet line pipe stub to within limit.”
16. Current TS 3.5.7, Condition C is revised from “Required IRWST injection line inoperable due to presence of noncondensible gases in both high point vents,” to “Required IRWST injection flow path with noncondensible gas volume in both squib valve outlet line pipe stubs not within limit.”
17. Current TS 3.5.7, Required Action C.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases from one high point vent,” to “Restore one squib valve outlet line pipe stub noncondensible gas volume to within limit.”
18. TS 3.5.8, “In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST)—Shutdown, MODE 6,” Condition B is revised from “Required IRWST injection line inoperable due to presence of noncondensible gases in one high point vent,” to “Required IRWST injection flow path with noncondensible gas volume in one squib valve outlet line pipe stub not within limit.”
19. Current TS 3.5.8, Required Action B.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases,”
20. Current TS 3.5.8, Condition C is revised from “Required IRWST injection line inoperable due to presence of noncondensible gases in both high point vents,” to “Required IRWST injection flow path with noncondensible gas volume in both squib valve outlet line pipe stubs not within limit.”
21. Current TS 3.5.8, Required Action C.1 is revised from “Vent noncondensible gases from one high point vent,” to “Restore one squib valve outlet line pipe stub noncondensible gas volume to within limit.”
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed change provides less stringent TS requirements by not expressly specifying the method of determining or restoring the noncondensible gas volume that can adversely affect the associated flow path; however, the requirement that noncondensible gas volume be within limit is not changed. These less stringent requirements do not result in operations that significantly increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event, and do not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. The less restrictive requirements continue to ensure process variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. The amended actions and surveillances continue to assure that noncondensible gas volumes are maintained and restored to within acceptable limits. The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses and licensing basis.
As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L18 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.6.8, “Containment Penetrations,” LCO 3.6.8.d.2 to allow the penetration flow path to be open provided it can be closed prior to steaming into the containment. In conjunction, current SR 3.6.8.3 as well as the corresponding containment Isolation function required in current TS 3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,” Table 3.3.2–1 Function 3.a for Modes 5 and 6, are removed. This removes requirements for Operable containment isolation signals in Modes 5 and 6, allowing manual operator actions to affect any required isolation prior to steaming into the containment.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would remove requirements for Operable containment isolation signals in Modes 5 and 6, allowing manual operator action to effect any required isolation. The design provisions for instrumented closure signals are unaffected. The isolation status of the penetration flow path is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an accident with the valves open and capable of being closed prior to steaming into the containment are no different than the consequences of the same accident with the current requirements. The valves are currently allowed to be open, provided they can be isolated. The accident analysis assumes cooling water inventory is not lost in the event of an accident. Thus, closing the valves prior to steaming into the containment will ensure this assumption is met. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to remove requirements for Operable containment isolation signals in Modes 5 and 6, and allowing manual operator action to isolate the purge valve penetration flow path prior to steaming into the containment, does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L19 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.9.6 “pH Adjustment,” LCO and current SR 3.9.6.1 trisodium phosphate (TSP) requirement from the volume requirement of 560 ft
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
Response: No.
The proposed change allows for a lesser volume over time consistent with expected compaction and agglomeration. While the total weight will remain constant and sufficient to assure safety analysis assumptions are met, the unintended requirement to maintain volume > 560 ft
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to allow for a lesser volume over time consistent with expected compaction and agglomeration, while maintaining the total weight to assure safety analysis assumptions are met, does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L20 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.7.2, “Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),” Condition D Note to allow separate Condition entry due to any inoperable valve covered by the LCO, not just the MSIVs.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a separate Condition entry for each affected flow path. The failure of the main steam line flow path covered by the LCO to close is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an accident are not affected since the inoperability in the flow path is addressed to assure affected flow paths are isolated as assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to allow a separate Condition entry for each affected flow path does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L21 SNC proposes to amend TS 3.8.1, “[Direct Current] DC Sources—Operating,” by deleting SR 3.8.1.3 Note 2.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Class 1E DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the FSAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the Class 1E DC electrical power system is capable of performing its function as described in the FSAR, therefore the mitigative functions supported by the Class 1E DC electrical power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the accident analysis.
The proposed TS change does not involve any changes to SSCs and does not alter the method of operation or control of SSCs as described in the FSAR. The current assumptions in the safety analysis regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are unaffected by this change. No additional failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced and the likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged. The integrity of fission product
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. Any alteration in procedures will continue to ensure that the plant remains within analyzed limits, and no change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change is acceptable because the operability of the Class 1E DC electrical power system is unaffected, there is no detrimental impact on any equipment design parameter, and the plant will still be required to operate within assumed conditions. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the Class 1E DC electrical power system is capable of performing its function as described in the FSAR; therefore, the support of the Class 1E DC electrical power system to the plant response to analyzed events will continue to provide the margins of safety assumed by the analysis. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed.
As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L22 SNC proposes to amend current TS 3.8.2, “DC Sources—Shutdown,” by adding a new Condition A to address inoperable battery chargers.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Class 1E DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the FSAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the Class 1E DC electrical power system is capable of performing its function as described in the FSAR, therefore the mitigative functions supported by the Class 1E DC electrical power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the accident analysis.
The proposed change does not involve any changes to SSCs and does not alter the method of operation or control of SSCs as described in the FSAR. The current assumptions in the safety analysis regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are unaffected by this change. No additional failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced and the likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the FSAR will not be affected by this change. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase because of this change.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. Any alteration in procedures will continue to ensure that the plant remains within analyzed limits, and no change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change is acceptable because the Operability of the Class 1E DC electrical power system is unaffected, there is no detrimental impact on any equipment design parameter, and the plant will still be required to operate within assumed conditions. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the Class 1E DC electrical power system is capable of performing its function as described in the FSAR; therefore, the support of the Class 1E DC electrical power system to the plant response to analyzed events will continue to provide the margins of safety assumed by the analysis. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed.
As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L23 SNC proposes to amend current TS 5.5.2, “Radioactive Effluent Control Program,” to state that the provisions of SR 3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3 are applicable to the Radioactive Effluents Control Program surveillance frequency.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
A TS frequency for the determination of cumulative and projected dose contributions from radioactive effluents is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the FSAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS continues to ensure that initial conditions assumed in the accident analysis are maintained. The proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. Any alteration in procedures will continue to ensure that the plant remains within analyzed limits, and no change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change, applying the 25% extension to the frequency of performing the monthly cumulative dose and projected dose calculations, will have no effect on the plant response to analyzed events and with therefore not impact a margin of safety. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the plant response to analyzed events will continue to provide the margins of safety assumed by the analysis. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed.
As such, there is no functional change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L24 SNC proposes to amend current TS 5.5.3, “Inservice Testing Program,” paragraph b from “The provisions of SR 3.0.2 are applicable to the above required Frequencies for performing inservice testing activities,” to “The provisions of SR 3.0.2 are applicable to the above required Frequencies and other normal and accelerated Frequencies specified as 2 years or less in the Inservice Testing Program for performing inservice testing activities.”
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The frequency for inservice testing is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the FSAR, nor is it associated with any mitigative actions to reduce consequences. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS continues to ensure that initial conditions accident mitigative features assumed in the accident analysis are maintained. The proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the FSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. Any alteration in procedures will continue to ensure that the plant remains within analyzed limits, and no change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the FSAR. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change, applying the 25% extension to certain frequencies for performing inservice testing, does not significantly degrade the reliability that results from performing the Surveillance at its specified Frequency. This is based on the recognition that the most probable result of any particular surveillance being performed is the verification of conformance with the SRs. As such, there is no technical change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety. Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that the plant response to analyzed events will continue to provide the margins of safety assumed by the analysis. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed. As such, there is no functional change to the requirements and therefore, there is no significant reduction in a 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.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 11, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 1, 2012.
The supplements dated January 20, 2012, and April 11, 2012, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 7, 2012.
The supplements dated March 23, March 29, and April 2, 2012, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 19, 2012, which also contains its final no significant hazards consideration determination.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Fukushima will hold a meeting on June 20, 2012, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and discuss the staff's proposed Interim Staff Guidances (ISGs) on acceptable approaches for complying with Orders EA–12–049, EA–12–050, and EA–12–051. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Antonio Dias (Telephone 301–415–6805 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Thursday, June 14, 2012, 10 a.m. (OPEN Portion) 10:15 a.m. (CLOSED Portion).
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Meeting OPEN to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Closed portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.).
1. President's Report.
2. Confirmation. Dennis Lauer as Vice President for Administrative Services and Chief Information Officer.
3. Minutes of the Open Session of the March 29, 2012 Board of Directors Meeting.
1. Finance Project—Kenya, Tanzania and East Africa.
2. Finance Project—Peru.
3. Finance Project—Jordan.
4. Finance Project—Botswana.
5. Finance Project—South Africa.
6. Finance Project—Central/Eastern Europe.
7. Finance Project—Brazil.
8. Finance Project—Sub-Saharan Africa.
9. Finance Project—Global.
10. Finance Project—South and Sub-Saharan Africa.
11. Minutes of the Closed Session of the March 29, 2012 Board of Directors Meeting.
12. Reports.
13. Pending Major Projects.
Written summaries of the projects to be presented will be posted on OPIC's Web site on or about May 25, 2012.
Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336–8438.
Request for public comment.
The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA), Public Law 98–373, established the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to develop national Arctic research policy five-year Federal research plans to implement ARPA. Chaired by the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), IARPC is composed of representatives from ten agencies. More information on IARPC can be found at:
The IARPC's Arctic Research Plan: FY2013–2017 (Five-Year Plan) describes research priorities for the next five years that are expected to benefit from interagency collaboration; not all research conducted by Federal agencies is included in the Five-Year Plan. The Five-Year Plan focuses on seven priority areas designed to enhance the goals and objectives of Federal agencies in Arctic research:
(1) Sea ice and marine ecosystem studies.
(2) Terrestrial ecosystem studies.
(3) Atmospheric studies effecting energy flux.
(4) Observing systems.
(5) Regional climate models.
(6) Adaptation tools for sustaining communities.
(7) Human health.
This request will be active through June 22, 2012, 11:59 EST.
The Five-Year Plan and additional information, including any updates to this
All submissions must be in English and must include your name, return address and email address, if applicable. Please clearly label submissions as “IARPC FIVE-YEAR PLAN COMMENT.”
Please do not include classified, personally identifying information (such as social security numbers), copyrighted material, or business confidential information. Please note that your submission may be subject to public release “as is” under applicable law.
Any questions about the content of this notice should be sent to A. Graefe,
For the purposes of research planning, we follow Section 112 of the ARPA in defining the Arctic as “all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers [in Alaska]; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain.”
[77 FR 30338, May 22, 2012].
Closed Meeting.
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.
May 24, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
Additional Item.
The following matter will also be considered during the 2:00 p.m. Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2012:
A personnel matter.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(2) and (6), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the item listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
On February 9, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
As stated in the Notice, FINRA's Mediation Code currently permits parties to mediation to select a mediator either from a list of FINRA mediators supplied by the Mediation Director, or from a list or other source of their own choosing. Although parties usually select a FINRA mediator, parties may select a mediator who is not on FINRA's roster.
FINRA has administered its mediation program for over 15 years. FINRA stated in the Notice that during this time it has developed a deep roster of seasoned securities mediators. Specifically, FINRA represented that its staff carefully screens every mediator applicant, and that the National Arbitration and Mediation Committee (“NAMC”)
Non-FINRA mediators are not subject to FINRA's screening process, background check, and periodic evaluation. Accordingly, FINRA stated that the selection of a non-FINRA mediator raises concerns for the forum. FINRA stated, however, that if a mediator expresses an interest in applying to be a FINRA mediator, and FINRA's program would benefit by adding the mediator, FINRA staff believes it would be prudent to permit a non-FINRA mediator chosen by the parties to serve on a case. But FINRA stated that if a mediator does not apply for FINRA's roster or FINRA believes the mediator is not appropriate for its forum, the Mediation Director should have the discretion to deny the parties' mediator selection.
For these reasons, in part, FINRA proposed to amend Rule 14107(a) to state that a mediator may be selected, with the Mediation Director's approval upon receipt of the parties' joint request, from a list or other source the parties choose. Under the proposed rule, if the Mediation Director rejects the mediator selected, the parties would still be able to select a FINRA approved mediator or a different non-FINRA mediator subject to the same conditions as the rejected mediator, or to mediate their dispute elsewhere.
FINRA Rule 14107(c) provides that a mediator selected or assigned to mediate a matter must comply with FINRA rules relating to disclosures required of arbitrators unless, with respect to a mediator selected from a source other than a list provided by FINRA, the parties elect to waive such disclosure. The proposed rule change would amend Rule 14107(c) to state that the paragraph would apply to a non-FINRA mediator who is approved to serve on a FINRA mediation.
The proposed rule change also would make two technical amendments to Rule 14107. It would amend Rule 14107(a) to change the bullet points to numbers to facilitate citation to particular provisions of Rule 14107(a). It would also amend Rule 14107(c) to replace the citation to Rule 12408 of the Customer Code of Arbitration Procedure to Rule 12405 to reflect that former Rule 12408 was re-numbered as part of a prior FINRA rule change.
In the Notice, FINRA represented that giving the Mediation Director discretion to determine whether parties may select a mediator who is not on FINRA's mediator roster would protect the quality and integrity of the process for users of FINRA's mediation program.
The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed rule change in response to the Notice.
The PIABA Letter stated that the proposed rule change would assist forum participants in resolving their disputes. The St. John's Letter stated that giving the Mediation Director discretion in approving mediators not on FINRA's roster would help to ensure quality and efficiency in mediation.
The Cornell Letter stated that it supported the proposed rule change because FINRA should be able to control the quality of its mediation program. The letter also noted that, in the Notice, FINRA stated that if the Mediation Director rejects the parties' selected mediator, the parties would still be able to select a FINRA approved mediator or a different non-FINRA mediator subject to the same conditions as the rejected mediator, or to mediate their dispute elsewhere. The letter recommended that FINRA include this language in the proposed rule text or, alternatively, that the Commission acknowledge the language in an order approving the proposed rule change. In
The PIRC Letter opposed the proposed rule change on the basis that it might inhibit investor choice and control over the mediation process. The letter stated that, under the current rule, an investor has the ability to select a mediator best suited to represent him or her in his or her specific claim. The letter further stated that this level of choice provides an investor a level of control over the process and increases the perception of its fairness. In particular, the letter stated that under the current rule, an investor could choose lower-cost options that suit the investor's financial status, such as a non-FINRA pro bono mediator, or a mediator who is willing to accept a reduced fee. The letter expressed concern that the proposed rule would increase the overall cost of mediation to investors because it would inhibit their ability to choose affordable non-FINRA mediators. In its Response Letter, FINRA stated that it has a duty to ensure the quality of its program and believes that maintaining control of its mediator roster is necessary to meet this duty. Moreover, the letter reiterated that parties would still have options for mediating their dispute if the Mediation Director rejected their selected mediator: The parties would be able to select a mediator on FINRA's roster, select a different non-FINRA mediator subject to the same conditions as the rejected mediator, or choose to mediate their dispute in another forum.
In its Response Letter, FINRA also stated that it believes its mediation program is cost-effective for investors of all means. FINRA stated it believes that its filing fees (of up to $300) are modest and that the Mediation Director has discretion to waive them. FINRA also stated that it offers many opportunities for parties using its mediators to reduce the cost of mediation, including: (1) When FINRA adds mediators to its roster, it asks them to reduce their rates for smaller claims; (2) FINRA's Mediation Administrators provide, upon request, parties with a list of mediators who have agreed to conduct mediations for $50 per hour in appropriate cases; (3) some mediators on FINRA's roster have agreed to conduct mediations on a pro bono basis for parties of limited means; and (4) every October, FINRA hosts Mediation Settlement Month during which both FINRA and the mediators on its roster lower their fees in order to encourage participation.
The Potter Letter stated, among other things, that FINRA has not established a need for the proposed rule change. The letter also stated that the proposed rule change would prevent parties from selecting a mediator of their choice and would restrict their freedom to contract. Moreover, the letter stated that the commenter believes the proposed rule would be difficult to enforce because FINRA would be unable to monitor a prohibition against private parties entering into private contracts.
In its Response Letter, FINRA stated that it does not believe the proposed rule change was unnecessary and reiterated that FINRA has a duty to ensure the quality of its mediation program, and that maintaining control of its mediator roster is a necessary to meet this duty. With respect to the letter's other objections, FINRA stated that it believes the commenter misinterpreted the proposal. Specifically, FINRA stated that mediation is voluntary, and that the proposed rule change would not prohibit parties from choosing their own mediators, or from choosing their own forum for mediation. In addition, FINRA reiterated that if the Mediation Director rejects a mediator selected by the parties, they would still be free to mediate their dispute elsewhere. Moreover, FINRA stated that it does not intend to police mediation between parties that occurs outside of FINRA's mediation forum.
For the aforementioned reasons, FINRA declined to amend the proposed rule change as suggested by commenters.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, the comments received, and FINRA's Response Letter. Based on its review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association. In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
More specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change to provide the Mediation Director with discretion to determine whether parties to a FINRA mediation may select a mediator who is not on FINRA's mediator roster would benefit investors and other participants in the forum by helping to protect the quality and integrity of FINRA's mediation program for parties using FINRA's forum. While the Commission appreciates the commenters' concerns, particularly regarding whether parties using the forum would understand the options available to them if the Mediation Director rejects a mediator selected by the parties, we believe that FINRA has responded adequately to the commenters' concerns and note that FINRA has stated that it will include in a Regulatory Notice announcing approval of the proposed rule change language designed to ensure that parties are cognizant of their options under FINRA's program, and that if the Mediation Director rejects the parties' chosen mediator, FINRA will notify the parties of the alternatives available to them.
The Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule change and believes that the record does not contain any information to indicate that the proposed rule would have a significant effect on efficiency, competition, or capital formation. In light of the record, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation and has concluded that the proposed rule is unlikely to have any significant effect.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
It is therefore ordered, 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 “Exchange Act”)
The ISE is proposing to amend the qualification standards for market makers to receive a rebate under the Exchange's modified maker/taker pricing structure. 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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the qualification standards for market makers to receive a rebate under the Exchange's maker/taker pricing structure. The Exchange currently assesses per contract transaction fees and provides rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from the Exchange (“maker/taker fees and rebates”) in a number of options classes (the “Select Symbols”).
In order to promote and encourage liquidity in the Select Symbols, the Exchange currently offers a $0.10 per contract rebate to Market Makers if the quotes they sent to the Exchange qualify the Market Maker to become a Market Maker Plus.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Market Maker Plus qualification standards in order for a Market Maker to qualify for the $0.10 per contract rebate when providing liquidity (making) in the Select Symbols. Specifically, ISE proposes to exclude from the NBBO calculation a Market Maker's single best and single worst overall quoting days in a symbol if doing so qualifies the Market Maker for the rebate. In effect, this variation to the current qualification standards will give a Market Maker the better of the NBBO average of all days in a month or the NBBO average of the month excluding the best and worst days, on a per symbol basis. The Exchange believes this proposed change will further encourage Market Makers to continue to quote aggressively in a class throughout the entire month despite an individual poor-performing day.
The Exchange currently determines whether a Market Maker qualifies as a Market Maker Plus at the end of each month by looking back at each Market Maker's quoting statistics per symbol during that month. If at the end of the month, a Market Maker meets the Exchange's stated criteria, the Exchange rebates $0.10 per contract for transactions in that symbol executed by
The Exchange also currently provides Market Makers a report on a daily basis with quoting statistics so that Market Makers can determine whether or not they are meeting the Exchange's current stated criteria. Again, the Exchange will continue to provide Market Makers a daily report so that Market Makers can track their quoting activity to determine whether or not they qualify for the Market Maker Plus rebate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also encourage Market Makers to post tighter markets in the Select Symbols and thereby increase liquidity and attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on June 1, 2012.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to provide rebates to Market Makers because paying a rebate would continue to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and create liquidity in the symbols that are subject to the rebate which the Exchange believes ultimately will benefit all market participants who trade on ISE. The Exchange already provides a rebate to Market Makers who meet the Exchange's stated quoting criteria, and is now merely proposing to broaden the qualification standards (not quoting requirements) that Market Makers have to meet in order to qualify for the rebate.
The Exchange believes that amending the qualification standards for Market Makers to qualify for a rebate will encourage these market participants to continue to post tighter markets in the Select Symbols and thereby increase liquidity and attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Market Maker Plus rebate employed by the Exchange has proven to be an effective incentive for Market Makers to provide liquidity in the Select Symbols. The Exchange further believes that the Exchange's Market Maker Plus rebate is not unfairly discriminatory because this rebate program is consistent with rebates that exist today at other options exchanges. The Exchange believes that the Market Maker Plus rebate is a competitive rebate and equivalent to incentives provided by other exchanges and is therefore reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that direct orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they deem rebate levels at a particular exchange to be low.
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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Quintek Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2007.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of The Saint James Co. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2009.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Urigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2010.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Valor Energy Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended February 28, 2009.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Wherify Wireless, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of WinWin Gaming, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 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 24, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 7, 2012.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Indocan Resources, Inc. (“IDCN”) because of questions concerning the adequacy of publicly available information about the company.
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 company.
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 company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on May 24, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on June 7, 2012.
By the Commission.
The Charter of the Department of State's Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) has been renewed for an additional two years.
The Charter of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee is being renewed for a two-year period. The Committee was established by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983, 19 U.S.C. 2601
Cultural Heritage Center, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20522. Telephone: (202) 632–6301; Fax: (202) 632–6300.
The Office of Private International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State hereby gives notice that the ACPIL Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Study Group will hold a public meeting on Friday June 15, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The public meeting will take place at the State Department Harry S Truman Building. The ACPIL ODR Study Group will meet to discuss the recent session of the UNCITRAL ODR Working Group, held May 21 through May 25, 2012, and will specifically address security issues relating to use of the ODR rules, including measures to address the risk of fraud involving consumers who participate.
The UNCITRAL ODR Working Group is charged with the development of legal instruments for resolving both business to business and business to consumer cross-border electronic commerce disputes. The Working Group is in the process of developing generic ODR procedural rules for resolution of cross-border electronic commerce disputes, along with separate instruments that may take the form of annexes on guidelines and minimum requirements for online dispute resolution providers and arbitrators, substantive legal principles for resolving disputes, and a
For the reports of the first three sessions of the UNCITRAL ODR Working Group—December 13–17, 2010, in Vienna (A/CN.9/716); May 23–27, 2011, in New York ((A/CN.9/721); and Nov. 14–18, 2011, in Vienna (A/CN.9/739)—please follow the following link:
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of effective date for goods of Australia of certain modifications to a product-specific rule of origin under the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (USAFTA).
In Proclamation 8334 of December 31, 2008, the President modified the rules of origin for certain goods of Australia under the USAFTA. While these modifications were incorporated in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (the “HTS”) at that time, the proclamation stated that the modifications would be effective on a date that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced in the
For further information, please contact Caroyl Miller, Deputy Textile Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508, email address:
Presidential Proclamation 7857 of December 20, 2004, implemented the USAFTA with respect to the United States and, pursuant to the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the “USAFTA Act”), incorporated in the HTS the tariff modifications and rules of origin necessary or appropriate to carry out the USAFTA. Section 203 of the USAFTA Implementation Act provides rules for determining whether goods imported into the United States originate in the territory of Australia and, thus, are eligible for the tariff and other treatment contemplated under the USAFTA. Section 203(o) of the USAFTA Act authorizes the President to proclaim, as a part of the HTS, the rules of origin set out in the USAFTA and to proclaim modifications to such previously proclaimed rules of origin, subject to the consultation and layover requirements of section 104 of the USAFTA Act.
The President determined pursuant to sections 201 and 203 of the USAFTA Act that the modifications to the HTS contained in Proclamation 8334 were appropriate and proclaimed such changes with respect to goods of Australia and modified general note 28 to the HTS. The proclamation further provides that the modifications are effective with respect to goods of Australia entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on the date that USTR announces in a notice published in the
On March 15, 2012, the Government of Australia notified the Government of the United States that it had completed its applicable domestic procedures to give effect to the agreement to change the USAFTA rules of origin for certain yarns of viscose rayon fiber with respect to goods of the United States. Subsequently, officials of the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States agreed to implement these changes with respect to each other's eligible goods, effective June 1, 2012.
In Proclamation 6969 of January 27, 1997, the President authorized the USTR to exercise the authority provided to the President under section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 to embody rectifications, technical or conforming changes, or similar modifications in the HTS. The United States and Australia have identified a technical correction to the modification to the rule of origin set out in Proclamation 8334. Accordingly, general note 28 to the HTS of the United States, subdivision (n), paragraph 1, is corrected to refer to subheadings 5501.10 through 5501.30, rather than 5501.00 through 5501.30.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise federal, state, and local government agencies and the public that the FAA is withdrawing its Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed capacity improvements at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). The Houston Airport System (HAS), the sponsor of the proposed improvements, has requested that the EIS be terminated because the need for the proposed capacity improvements no longer exists. The HAS noted that arrival and departure delays at IAH have been decreasing and stated that IAH is currently one of the least delayed large hub airports in the United States.
Paul Blackford, by mail at Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, Attn: Paul Blackford, ASW–650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, email at
On April 9, 2009, the FAA issued a Notice of Intent in the
On July 30, 2010, the FAA received a letter from the HAS requesting that the preparation of the EIS be delayed. The HAS indicated that additional planning work was necessary to ensure that the assumptions used to develop the AMP remained valid. The HAS cited several reasons that contributed to their decision to conduct additional planning including the potential merger of United and Continental Airlines, the economic downturn, potential changes to aircraft fleet mix due to the airline merger, and the need to update the existing terminal concept. Therefore, the FAA suspended the preparation of the EIS and published a notice in the
On January 3, 2012, the HAS sent a letter to the FAA requesting that the EIS be terminated. The HAS cited statistics that show delays at IAH have been decreasing, stated that they do not expect significant increases in the number of aircraft operations at IAH, and did not wish to pursue a new runway at this time. In response to the HAS letter, the FAA is terminating the EIS.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant RockTenn an exemption from the driver hours-of-service (HOS) provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). This limited exemption is for RockTenn's shipping department employees and occasional substitute commercial driver's license (CDL) holders who transport paper mill products short distances between its shipping and receiving locations on a public road. The exemption is restricted to a specific route. RockTenn requested an exemption from the HOS regulation that prohibits drivers from operating property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) after the 14th hour of coming on duty. This exemption will allow these individuals to occasionally work up to 16 consecutive hours and be allowed to return to work with less than the mandatory 10 consecutive hours off duty.
This exemption is effective from April 17, 2012 (12:01 a.m.), through April 16, 2014 (11:59 p.m.).
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Telephone: 202–366–4325. Email:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption from many of the safety regulations, including the HOS requirements in 49 CFR part 395, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent such exemption” (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2), a property-carrying CMV driver is prohibited from operating a CMV on a public road after the end of the 14th hour after coming on duty following 10 or more consecutive hours off duty.
RockTenn operates a paper mill located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, its principal place of business. Its shipping and receiving departments are on opposite sides of the paper mill, requiring driver-employees to travel on a public road to shuttle trailers as needed. These drivers utilize a public road—Compress Street—an average of forty times per day to travel between its manufacturing facility, and shipping and receiving docks. These drivers do not transport any material farther than the paper mill lots and/or Compress Street. The distance traveled on Compress Street is approximately 275 feet in one direction, and one tractor is used to perform this work.
RockTenn requires all shipping department CMV drivers to have the required 10 hours off duty prior to returning to work and only allows them to work a maximum of 14 consecutive hours in any given duty period. It has three 8-hour shifts up to 7 days a week, and there are two shipping employees on each shift. One employee drives a fork-lift truck loading trailers with finished goods, and the other operates the tractor shuttling trailers. These employees do not drive the CMV continuously during their shift(s).
According to RockTenn, the problem arises because they use a backward-rotating shift schedule, and also on occasion when a shipping department driver does not report for work as scheduled. On a Monday, for example, if an individual worked the weekend, his or her shift would normally have to “hurry back” within 8 hours. As a result of the mandatory 10 hours off-duty requirement, RockTenn schedules these drivers' shifts to start later than other employees. This creates at least 2 hours when the company cannot load or transport trailers with finished goods due to the absence of the drivers.
RockTenn requested a limited exemption from 49 CFR part 395 for its shipping department CMV drivers, as well as others with a valid CDL who on occasion must substitute, allowing all such drivers to work up to 16 hours in a day and return to work with a minimum of at least 8 hours off duty. If exempt from the normal HOS requirements, these employees can follow the same work schedule as other RockTenn employees on their shift, and will be able to work for the full 16 hours of a “double shift.” RockTenn can therefore minimize the chances of delayed shipments that may occur when their drivers are not allowed to work the same schedule as other employees.
RockTenn acknowledged in its application that these drivers would still be subject to all of the other Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), including possessing a CDL, random drug testing, medical certification, and other driver-qualification requirements.
A copy of RockTenn's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
On June 14, 2010, FMCSA published notice of this application, and asked for public comment (75 FR 33664). One set of comments was received to the public docket. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) claimed that there is nothing in RockTenn's application demonstrating that directing workers to work 16 hours in a shift with 8 hours off duty would produce a safety outcome that is equivalent to or greater than the safety secured by adhering to the 14-hour rule. Advocates further indicated that approval of their request would be for the convenience of the applicant, with no assurance of safety benefit or equivalency.
The FMCSA has evaluated RockTenn's application for exemption and the public comments. The Agency believes that RockTenn's overall safety performance as reflected in its “satisfactory” safety rating, as well as a number of other factors discussed below, will likely enable it to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
This exemption is being granted under extremely narrow conditions. The exemption is restricted to CDL holders employed by RockTenn who are exclusively assigned to a specific route. This specific route is entirely on one street (Compress Street), between their shipping and receiving departments—approximately 275 feet in one direction. The CMVs operated by RockTenn's shipping department shuttle drivers will only be exposed to travel on a public road for very brief periods of time.
The exemption enables RockTenn's shipping department employees and occasional substitute CDL holders who transport paper mill products between their shipping and receiving locations to work up to 16 consecutive hours in a duty period and return to work with a minimum of at least 8 hours off duty when necessary. This is comparable to current HOS regulations that allow certain “short-haul” drivers a 16-hour driving “window” once a week and other non-CDL short-haul drivers two 16-hour duty periods per week, provided specified conditions are met. Furthermore, 49 CFR 381.305(a) specifies that motor carriers “* * * may apply for an exemption if one or more FMCSR prevents you from implementing more efficient or effective operations that would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption.”
The exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) (the “14-hour rule”) is granted for the period from 12:01 a.m. on April 17, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. on April 16, 2014, for drivers employed by RockTenn operating CMVs on Compress Street between the company's shipping and receiving departments.
The exemption is restricted to drivers employed by RockTenn operating CMVs on the route specified above. This exemption is limited strictly to the provisions of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) (Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles), commonly referred to as the “14-hour rule”. In addition, on each trip, the CMV must only travel on Compress Street—approximately 275 feet in one direction—between RockTenn's shipping and receiving departments. These drivers must comply will all other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.
RockTenn must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
a. Date of the accident,
b. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
c. Driver's name and license number,
d. Vehicle number and state license number,
e. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
f. Number of fatalities,
g. The police-reported cause of the accident,
h. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations, and
i. The total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to the accident.
Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions. RockTenn and each driver may be subject to periodic monitoring by FMCSA during the period of the exemption.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Acting Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than Friday, June 8, 2012, Anita K. Blackman, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Suite W32–300, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; 202–366–0091.
Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Advisory Board at any time.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning statutory options.
Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622–6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments tax treatment of salvage and reinsurance.
Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Request for Comments: 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. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's 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 of information 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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning offshore voluntary compliance initiative.
Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–6665, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning application of section 382 in short taxable years and with respect to controlled groups.
Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622–6665, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8908, Energy Efficient Home Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622–6665, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
We created Form 8908 to reflect new code section 45L which allows qualified contractors to claim a credit for each qualified energy-efficient home sold in tax years ending after December 31, 2005. The new credit ($2,000 or $1,000) is based on the energy saving requirements of the home. To qualify for the credit, the home must be acquired after 2005 but before January 2008.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Special Form of Request For Payment of United States Savings and Retirement Securities Where Use of a Detached Request is Authorized.
Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4–A, Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies should be directed to Bruce A. Sharp, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street A4–A, Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328, (304) 480–8150.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 28, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, Fax (202) 632–7583 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before July 30, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or Fax (202) 275–5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address regional haze in the State of Hawaii. EPA proposes to determine that the FIP meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”) and EPA's rules concerning reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Written comments must be received at the address below on or before July 2, 2012.
See Supplementary Information section for further instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal, attend a public hearing or submit comments.
Gregory Nudd, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 415–947–4107,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
i. The words or initials
ii. The initials
iii. The initials
iv. The initials
v. The initials
vi. The initials
vii. The words
viii. The initials
ix. The initials
x. The words
xi. The initials
xii. The initials
xiii. The initials
xiv. The initials
xv. The initials
xvi. The initials
xvii. The initials
xviii. The initials
xix. The initials
xx. The initials
xxi. The initials
xxii. The initials
xxiii. The initials
xxiv. The initials
xxv. The initials
xxvi. The initials
xxvii. The initials
xxviii. The initials
xxix. The initials
xxx. The initials
xxxi. The initials
xxxii. The initials
xxxiii. The initials
x. The initials
xi. The initials
xii. The initials
xiii. The initials
xiv. The initials
xv. The initials
Data, information, and documents on which this proposed FIP relies have been placed in the docket for this action (docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0345). All documents in the docket are listed in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0345 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
Do not submit CBI to EPA through
When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
As announced on May 11, 2012, 77 FR 27671, EPA will hold two public hearings at the following dates, times and locations to accept oral and written comments into the record:
Public Hearing 6:30–8:30 p.m.
Public Hearing: 5:30–7:30 p.m.
To provide opportunities for questions and discussion, EPA will hold open houses prior to the public hearings. During these open houses, EPA staff will be available to informally answer questions on our proposed action. Any comments made to EPA staff during the open houses must still be provided formally in writing or orally during a public hearing in order to be considered in the record.
The public hearings will provide the public with an opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed Regional Haze FIP for Hawaii. EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Please consult sections I.C, I.D. and I.E of this preamble for guidance on how to submit written comments to EPA.
At the public hearing, the hearing officer may limit the time available for each commenter to address the proposal to five minutes or less if the hearing officer determines it is appropriate. Any person may provide written or oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public hearing. We will include verbatim transcripts, in English, of the hearing and written statements in the rulemaking docket.
Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particulates (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 Parks (NPs) and wilderness areas (WAs). 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 NPs 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 Federal areas
As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 169B to focus attention on regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule). The primary regulatory requirements that address regional haze are found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 and are summarized below. Under 40 CFR 51.308(b), all states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands are required to submit an initial state implementation plan (SIP) addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) sets out specific requirements for states' initial regional haze implementation plans. In particular, each state's plan must establish a long-term strategy that ensures reasonable progress (RP) toward achieving natural visibility conditions in each Class I area affected by the emissions from sources within the state. In addition, for each Class I area within the state's boundaries, the plan must establish a reasonable progress goal (RPG) for the first planning period that ends on July 31, 2018. The long-term strategy must include enforceable emission limits and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPG. Regional haze 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. These sources, where appropriate, are required to install Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls to eliminate or reduce visibility impairment. The specific regional haze plan requirements are summarized below.
The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for measuring 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
The deciview is used to express reasonable progress goals, define visibility conditions and track changes in visibility. To track changes in visibility 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 and periodically review progress midway through each ten-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 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.
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, “baseline visibility conditions” are 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. 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 that establish two RPGs (
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 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007) (pp. 4–2, 5–1) (“EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance”). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the “uniform rate of progress” (URP) or the “glide path”) and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress that states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (“Class I state”) must also consult with potentially “contributing states,” i.e., other nearby states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
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 Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”) to assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each such “subject-to-BART” source. States are required to use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines in making a BART determination for fossil fuel-fired electric generating plants with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. States are encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, described in the RHR as “BART-eligible sources.” 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i). A BART-eligible
The BART Guidelines allow states to 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 Guidelines provide that:
A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to “cause” visibility impairment; a source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview change may still contribute to visibility impairment and thus be subject to BART. Because of varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas, the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source “contributes to any visibility impairment” for the purposes of BART may reasonably differ across States. As a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source “contributes” to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.
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 assigned to each factor, but all five factors must be considered. The BART Guidelines provide further detail about how to analyze these factors.
Once a state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4), 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for the BART controls on the source.
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that states include in their regional haze SIP a ten- to fifteen-year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a long-term strategy (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 needed to achieve the reasonable progress goals” for all Class I areas within and affected by emissions from the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
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 downwind state to coordinate with contributing states to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area.
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) Emission 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. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the long-term strategy 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 revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR requires a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on 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 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through “participation” in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network,
• 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
• 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 through 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every ten 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.
Each state also is required to submit a report to EPA every five years that evaluates progress toward achieving the RPG for each Class I area within the state and outside the state if affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). The first progress report is due five years from submittal of the initial regional haze SIP revision. At the same time a five-year progress report is submitted, a state must determine the adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve the established goals for visibility improvement. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The RHR contains more detailed requirements associated with these parts of the Rule.
The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Furthermore, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
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 Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 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 western United States. WRAP member State governments include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.
EPA made a finding of failure to submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2392), determining that Hawaii failed to submit a SIP that addressed any of the required regional haze SIP elements of 40 CFR 51.308. Under section 110(c) of the Act, whenever we find that a State has failed to make a required submission we are required to promulgate a FIP. Specifically, section 110(c) provides:
(1) The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 years after the Administrator—
(A) finds that a State has failed to make a required submission or finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the State does not satisfy the minimum criteria established under [section 110(k)(1)(A)], or
(B) disapproves a State implementation plan submission in whole or in part, unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.
[A] plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by the Administrator to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation plan, and which includes enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives, such as marketable permits or auctions or emissions allowances) * * *.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), we have identified two Class I areas within Hawaii: Hawaii Volcanoes NP on the Island of Hawaii, and Haleakala NP on the Island of Maui. EPA is responsible for developing RPGs for these two Class I areas. EPA has also determined that emissions from sources in Hawaii are not reasonably expected to have impacts at Class I areas in other states. See section III.G.1 below.
As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule and in accordance with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA calculated baseline/current and natural visibility conditions for the two Hawaii Class I areas, Hawaii Volcanoes NP and Haleakala NP, on the most impaired and least impaired days, as summarized below.
Natural
For the two Class I Areas in Hawaii, EPA opted to use WRAP calculations in which the default estimates for the natural conditions (see Table 2) were combined with the “new IMPROVE equation” and the Natural Conditions II algorithm (see Table 3). This is an acceptable approach under our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance. Table 2 shows the default natural visibility values for the 20% worst days and 20% best days.
EPA also referred to WRAP calculations using the new IMPROVE equation. Table 3 shows the natural visibility values for each Class I Area for the 20% worst days and 20% best days using the new IMPROVE Equation and Natural Conditions II algorithm.
The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review of the science
The natural visibility value estimations for 2064 do not include an estimate of the visibility impairment from the emissions from the Kilauea volcano, which is located in the Hawaii Volcanoes NP. The emissions from the volcano vary from year to year, and it is not possible to estimate the emissions from the volcano or the effect they will have on Class I area visibility in the year 2064. Therefore, in estimating natural conditions for purposes of this first planning period, we have assumed that there will be no visibility impact from the volcano.
As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule and in accordance with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA calculated baseline visibility conditions for Hawaii Volcanoes NP and Haleakala NP. The baseline condition calculation begins with the calculation of light extinction, using the IMPROVE equation. The IMPROVE equation sums the light extinction
The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000 through 2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using available monitoring data. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). This FIP proposes to use visibility monitoring data collected by IMPROVE monitors located in the two Hawaii Class I areas for the years 2001 through 2004 and the resulting baseline conditions represent an average for 2001 through 2004. A complete year of monitoring data was not available for 2000; therefore, data from 2000 were not included in the baseline calculations. Table 4 shows the baseline conditions for the two Class I areas.
To address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), EPA also calculated the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions at each Class I area. Table 5 shows the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions at each Class I area.
In setting the RPGs, EPA reviewed the IMPROVE data to analyze and determine the URP needed to reach natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. In so doing, the analysis compared the baseline visibility conditions in each Class I area to the natural visibility conditions in each Class I area (as described above) and determined the URP needed in order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 in the two Class I areas. The analysis constructed the URP consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and consistent with our 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight line from the baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000 through 2004 to the level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for each Class I area. The URPs are summarized in Table 6. The degree of improvement to meet the URP at these sites is 1.4 deciviews at Haleakala NP and 2.7 deciviews at Hawaii Volcanoes NP.
The visibility and pollutant contributions on the 20% worst visibility days for the baseline period (2000–2004) show variation across the two Class I areas in Hawaii. Table 7 shows average data from the IMPROVE monitors for 2001 through 2004.
The visibility
Organic carbon contributes to 10% and elemental carbon contributes to 5% of the visibility impairment at the current monitoring site (HALE1), which is located outside the park. However, more recent data measured at the Haleakala Crater site (HACR1) site at the Haleakala National Park Border shows lower concentrations of organic and elemental carbon than the HALE1 monitoring site.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that EPA maintain a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal 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. The Regional Haze Rule does not specify the baseline year for the inventory, but EPA has recommended that 2002 be used as the inventory base year.
For this first Hawaii Regional Haze implementation plan, Hawaii DOH initially selected 2005 as their base year because it was the most recent year with a full inventory when they began their technical work.
The majority of the 2005, 2008, and 2018 inventories were derived from a 2010 study conducted by Environ on behalf of the Hawaii DOH.
EPA also worked with UNC and ICF to improve the 2018 emissions estimates for marine sources. Environ used the best data available at the time, but did not account for the impact of the economic recession on marine vessel activity, and cruise ships in particular. In addition, Environ did not take into account the impact of the North American Emissions Control Area (NAECA). The United States Government, together with Canada and France, established the NA ECA under the auspices of Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty developed by the International Maritime Organization. This ECA will require use of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating within 200 nautical miles of the majority of the U.S. and Canadian coastline, including the U.S. Gulf Coast and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012. The ECA will result in lower NO
EPA has reviewed the methods used by Environ, the Hawaii Department of Health and ICF in developing this inventory. We propose to find that the best available emissions factors and activity data were used in developing the emissions estimates. We also propose to find that the inventory captures all of the emissions sources relevant to the development of a Regional Haze Plan.
There are a few important conclusions to draw from the 2005, 2008, and 2018 statewide emissions inventories in Tables 8 through 10. First, nonanthropogenic emissions are significant for SO
However, anthropogenic SO
Our analysis of the monitoring data indicates that SO
In order to determine the significant sources contributing to haze in Hawaii's Class I areas, EPA relied upon the monitoring data from the IMPROVE network and the emission inventory for the State of Hawaii. EPA also reviewed the source apportionment analysis developed by Hawaii DOH
Table 11, below, shows the percentage contribution of different pollutant species to light extinction at the two Class I Areas in Hawaii on the 20% Worst Days in 2001 to 2004.
Sulfate is
Nitrate contributes 9% to the visibility degradation on the 20% worst days at Haleakala. The major anthropogenic sources of nitrate on Maui are point sources, on-road and non-road mobile sources, and shipping. Nitrate contributes 1% to the visibility degradation on the 20% worst days at Hawaii Volcanoes NP.
Organic Carbon contributes to 10% of the visibility degradation at the Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is located outside of the park. A comparison of monitoring data at the Haleakala Crater (HACR1) IMPROVE monitoring site at the Haleakala Site boundary shows approximately half the level of organic carbon of the HALE1 site.
Elemental Carbon contributes to 5% of the visibility degradation at the Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is located outside of the park. A comparison of recent monitoring at the Haleakala Crater monitoring site at Haleakala NP (HACR1) shows a lower level of elemental carbon of the HALE1 site.
Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation at the Haleakala (HALE1) monitor. The sources of coarse mass include fugitive dust, international transport, and shipping. Soil contributes to 1% of the visibility degradation at each of the Class I Areas. The soil impact varies seasonally, with the highest levels in the springtime, and appears to be associated with international transport.
EPA has evaluated the six particulate pollutants (ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to visibility impairment at Hawaii's two mandatory Class I federal areas, and determined that the first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation should focus primarily on significant sources of SO
The sources of coarse mass (CM) are uncertain because of emission inventory limitations associated with natural sources (predominantly wildfires) and uncertainty of fugitive (windblown) emissions. Because of the difficulty in attributing the sources of visibility impairment for this pollutant, EPA has determined that it is not reasonable in this planning period to recommend emission control measures for coarse mass. Coarse mass contribution to visibility impairment, emissions sources, and potential control measures should be addressed in future Regional Haze plan updates.
Because fine soil appears to be primarily attributable to international transport, EPA has determined that it is not reasonable in this planning period to recommend emission control measures for fine soil. Although organic and elemental carbon contribute to base year visibility impairment, recent monitoring at the Haleakala Crater (HACR1) monitoring site and the Hawaii Volcanoes (HAVO1) show low contributions to visibility impairment from organic and elemental carbon.
The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-eligible sources within the state's boundaries. In 2008, the Hawaii DOH conducted a survey of the major sources in the state to identify which sources were BART eligible. This survey was completed and certified by the responsible official at each major source. Through that process, the following facilities were identified as BART-eligible: Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company (HC&S) Puunene facility, Chevron Refinery, Tesoro Refinery, Hu Honua Bioenergy—Pepeekeo facility, Maui Electric Company (MECO)—Kahului facility, Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) Kanoelehua Hill, Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)—Waiau facility, HECO—Kahe facility. We propose to determine that each of these facilities is BART-eligible.
The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment at any Class I area,
The BART Guidelines provide that we may use the CALPUFF
The BART Guidelines indicate that a modeling protocol be developed for determining individual source attributions. The State of Hawaii's contractor, Alpine Geophysics, developed a protocol, which was reviewed by the State of Hawaii and EPA.
For the 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. The BART Guidelines state that, “[a] single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to `cause' visibility impairment.” 70 FR 39161, July 5, 2005. The BART Guidelines also state that “the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may reasonably differ across states,” but, “[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.”
For its analysis, Hawaii chose to use the recommended 0.5 deciview threshold for subject-to-BART determination and RP prioritization. EPA believes this threshold is appropriate, based on the number of sources affecting the Class I areas and the magnitude of the individual sources impacts. Therefore, we propose to use a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews for determining which sources are subject to BART.
The CALPUFF modeling analysis was performed to determine which BART-eligible sources in Hawaii are subject to BART.
As shown in Table 12, EPA proposes to exempt six of the eight BART-eligible sources in the State from further review under the BART requirements. The visibility impacts attributable to each of these sources fell below 0.5 deciviews. Our proposed contribution threshold captures those sources responsible for most of the total visibility impacts, while still excluding other sources with very small impacts.
The results of the CALPUFF modeling are summarized in Table 12. Those facilities listed with demonstrated impacts at all Class I areas less than 0.5 deciviews are proposed by EPA to not be subject to BART; those with impacts greater than 0.5 deciviews are proposed by EPA to be subject to BART.
The owner of the Hu Honua Bioenergy relinquished the facility's existing permit on September 16, 2010 and the facility was issued a new permit on August 31, 2011, which allows the facility to burn only non-fossil fuels.
The third step of a BART evaluation is to perform the BART analysis. The BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164 (July 6, 2005)) describe the BART analysis as consisting of the following five steps:
• Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies;
• Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options;
• Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control Technologies;
• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results; and
• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
In determining BART, the state, or EPA if implementing a FIP, must consider the five statutory factors in section 169A of the CAA: (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.
As mentioned previously, the only source in Hawaii subject to BART is the Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station (Hill) on the Island of Hawaii (the Big Island). Specifically, there are two residual fuel oil-fired boilers at this plant that are subject to BART (Hill 5 and Hill 6). Hill 5 is a 14 megawatt (MW) front-fired boiler. Hill 6 is a 21 MW tangentially fired boiler. Both boilers currently burn residual oil with a sulfur content not to exceed 2% by weight. Table 13 summarizes the baseline emission rates and modeled visibility impact of these sources. The annual emissions are based on 2009 operations because 2009 was the most current, complete year of data available when this modeling was performed in 2010.
Trinity
The Trinity report appropriately examined BART controls for NO
For PM, the Trinity report considered the following technologies: Dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP), wet ESP, fabric filter, wet scrubber, cyclone and fuel switching. Dry ESPs, cyclones and fabric filters are not appropriate for the type of particulate emitted by this plant. A wet scrubber would work, but these types of devices are better suited to larger particulate than is emitted from an oil-fired boiler and their control efficiency would be small. A wet ESP would have good control efficiency and is technically feasible. Similarly, switching to distillate fuel would be an effective and technically feasible control for PM. Trinity estimated the cost effectiveness of a wet ESP as $13,000 per ton of PM controlled. They estimated the cost effectiveness of switching to distillate fuel as $170,000 per ton. Neither of these controls would be cost effective for PM.
For NO
Based on our consideration of the five BART factors, EPA has determined that no control for NO
The principal visibility-impairing pollutant from the Hill Plant is SO
The Trinity report considered both flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and fuel switching as possible controls. The report found that no other oil-fired electric generating unit had installed FGD technology and due to the lack of industry experience, the technology was infeasible. EPA agrees that FGD technology is unproven for this application and concurs with Trinity's decision to focus on fuel switching. However, the Trinity analysis only looked at switching to distillate fuel oil. Distillate fuel oil is substantially more expensive than residual fuel oil and it provides less energy per gallon. As a result, it is not a cost effective control measure.
EPA requested HECO to consider switching to lower sulfur residual fuel oil, which would be a less expensive option. HECO responded with its own cost effectiveness estimate.
EPA considered this cost estimate to be too high in light of available market data and conducted our own analysis, which is summarized in Table 14, below, and further explained in the TSD for this action.
The next factors to consider are: (2) The energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; and (4) the remaining useful life of the source. There are no existing pollution controls at the site for SO
The projections based on the goals of the Clean Energy Bill assume that the energy conservation and renewable energy goals will be met in a more or less even fashion year to year. So, by 2018, most of these projects will be in place. This is a fairly optimistic scenario, but it gives some insight into the impact of the Clean Energy Bill. By 2018, Hill is projected to be operating at a significantly lower capacity factor and/or burning biofuels with much less sulfur. Although the resulting reductions in sulfur emissions are not enforceable requirements, they suggest that SO
The final factor to consider is the visibility benefits of controls. Under the BART Guidelines, the improved visibility in deciviews from installing controls is determined by using the CALPUFF air quality model. CALPUFF, generally, simulates the transport and dispersion of emissions, and the conversion of SO
The “delta deciviews” for control options estimated by the modeling represents a BART source's impact on visibility at the Class I areas under different control scenarios. Each modeled day and location in the Class I area will have an associated delta deciviews for each control option. For each day, the model finds the maximum visibility impact of all locations (
In its BART analysis for Hill, Trinity modeled the lower emission rates associated with lower sulfur fuels and estimated the following visibility benefits. The delta deciview (delta dv) impact from Hill decreased from 1.56 for baseline conditions to 1.05 when burning the 1% sulfur fuel, which represents an approximately 0.5 dv benefit.
Taking into consideration all of these factors, we propose to determine that BART for Hill is no additional controls. In particular, although we consider 0.5 dv to be a significant improvement in visibility, we do not believe it justifies the imposition of a control with a cost effectiveness of approximately $5,600/ton in this case. We are particularly concerned about unduly increasing electricity rates in Hawaii, given that these rates are already three times the national average according to the Energy Information Agency.
Nonetheless, as explained below, our reasonable progress analysis shows that some additional SO
In determining if reasonable progress is being made, states, or EPA if implementing a FIP, are required to consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in our Regional Haze Rule 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 (“the four RP factors”). Once these factors have been considered, the typical method for determining if a state is making reasonable progress is to use meteorological and air quality computer models to predict the visibility at Class I areas for the end of the planning period (2018). Those modeling results are then assessed to ensure that visibility is not degrading on the best days and that it is improving on the worst days at a reasonable rate, taking into consideration the relevant statutory factors, as well as the base period visibility conditions and the goal of zero anthropogenic visibility impairment by 2064.
In the case of Hawaii, though, a different method of determining reasonable progress is required. As explained above in sections III.C.1 and III.D, the dominant cause of visibility impairment at Hawaii's Class I areas is sulfate compounds and over 96% of the sulfate emissions in Hawaii are from the volcano. However, because the volcanic eruptions vary greatly from year to year with no discernible pattern, it is impossible to predict future volcanic emissions. The emissions vary by hundreds of thousands of tons per year. As a result, there is little value in attempting to model visibility at the Class I areas in 2018.
EPA has evaluated the six particulate pollutants (ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to visibility impairment at Hawaii's two mandatory Class I federal areas. Sulfate is the primary cause of visibility impairment at each of Hawaii's Class I Areas, and EPA has determined that the first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation should focus primarily on significant sources of SO
Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation at Haleakala, and is also of concern. However, the sources of coarse mass (CM) are uncertain because of emission inventory limitations associated with natural sources (predominantly wildfires) and uncertainty of fugitive (windblown) emissions. Because of the difficulty in attributing the sources of visibility impairment for this pollutant, EPA has
Because fine soil appears to be primarily attributable to international transport, EPA is proposing to determine that it is not reasonable in this planning period to recommend emission control measures for fine soil. Although organic and elemental carbon contribute to base year visibility impairment, recent monitoring at the Haleakala Crater (HACR1) monitoring site and the Hawaii Volcanoes (HAVO1) site show low contributions to visibility impairment from organic and elemental carbon.
Due to the absence of modeling to project visibility at Hawaii's Class I areas in 2018, EPA is focusing its reasonable progress analysis on reducing anthropogenic emissions of visibility-impairing pollution. As explained in section III.D above, the key anthropogenic pollutants of concern are SO
Rather than use a full statewide inventory to judge reasonable progress, we focused on the inventories for the islands where the Class I areas are located: Maui and the island of Hawaii (“the Big Island”). Population, economic activity and therefore anthropogenic emissions in the State of Hawaii are concentrated on the island of Oahu. But, as explained below, our analysis indicates that those emissions do not significantly impair visibility at the Class I areas. Prevailing winds at the Honolulu Airport on Oahu are from the east-north-east.
Given these modeling results and the prevailing winds in Oahu and Maui for this planning period, we have focused our RP analysis on the islands that contain the Class I areas. Tables 16 and 17 show the emission inventories for the islands of Maui and Hawaii.
As shown in tables 16 and 17, mobile sources (on-road, non-road, aircraft and marine) constitute the largest fraction of base-year emissions on both islands (48%). The NO
Point sources, and in particular electric utility units, also comprise a significant portion of NO
The two remaining anthropogenic NO
In sum, taking into consideration the four RP factors and the relatively small contribution of NO
Our analysis shows that existing requirements under the Clean Air Act will result in net reductions of anthropogenic emissions of SO
Mobile source SO
Point Sources comprise 77% of the SO
The first RP factor is costs of compliance. HECO (the electric utility) performed a detailed analysis of the cost of reducing SO
The second RP factor is the time necessary for compliance. The switch to a lower sulfur residual fuel oil than is currently being burned does not require any capital investment or construction, but it does require time to get new fuel contracts into place with the new sulfur limits. It may take time for the fuel suppliers to secure the new fuel and it will take time for the current fuel inventory to be consumed.
The third and fourth RP factors are the energy and non-air quality impacts of control measures and the remaining useful life of the source. EPA considered these factors in the context of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative that sets the goal of 70% clean energy by 2030. The Initiative includes the 2009 Clean Energy Omnibus Bill (ACT 155 (09), HB 1464, signed June 25, 2009). This statute calls for 30% reduction in energy use via efficiency and increases the renewable portfolio standard to 40% by 2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF to project the 2018 emissions of power plants considering the requirements of the Clean Energy Omnibus Bill. These projections are compared to the current 2018 projections based on the most recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP predates the 2009 bill and so does not account for its requirements. Table 20 compares the baseline emission projections for 2018, derived from the current IRP and the projections that take into account the goals of the Clean Energy Bill.
Based on the foregoing analysis for the four RP factors, we propose to determine that it is not reasonable to require additional SO
Unlike on Maui, EPA projects that, without additional controls, SO
Mobile source emissions of SO
Point sources account for roughly 71% of the anthropogenic SO
The first RP factor to consider is the cost of compliance. HECO (the electric utility) performed a detailed analysis of the cost of reducing SO
In Table 23, most of the assumptions are the same as in Table 19, but the cost differential is a bit higher due to the extra transport costs. We added 0.065 $/gal to the estimate for a total of 0.255 $/gal. The 0.065 $/gal estimate is derived from the six-year (2006–2011) cost differential between residual fuel oil delivered to Maui and the same oil delivered to the Big Island.
With these assumptions, EPA estimates an annual increase in fuel
The second factor to consider is the time necessary for compliance. The considerations here are the same as for Maui.
The third and fourth factors to consider are the energy and non-air quality impacts of control measures and the remaining useful life of the source. As part of our consideration of these two factors, EPA is taking into account the anticipated results of the Clean Energy Bill described above. Table 24 compares the emission projections for 2018 based on the IRP and the projections that take into account the goals of the Clean Energy Bill.
In summary, without further control, emissions of SO
Therefore, EPA is proposing to cap total emissions at the fuel oil-fired boilers at Hill, Shipman and Puna at 3,550 tons of SO
In addition to reducing emissions from ships in and near ports, the ECA also significantly reduces emissions from ships traveling from port-to-port. The projected effect of the ECA on this category of marine emissions is shown in Table 25. EPA considered this as supplemental information when determining whether reasonable progress is being made with existing regulations.
As explained above, there is no modeling available for this planning period that can reliably predict the change in visibility due to changes in the emission inventory for all sources (shipping, mobile sources, point sources, etc.).
In order to show how the future emission changes may affect the aerosol levels in each of the Class 1 areas, EPA estimated the effect that the changes in the island-specific inventories for NO
At Hawaii Volcanoes NP, the projected visibility for 2018 is slightly worse without the proposed FIP control measures. With the proposed FIP control measure, there is a slight improvement in visibility conditions compared to the year 2005 for both the 20% best and 20% worst days. At Haleakala NP, there is a slight improvement in visibility conditions compared to the year 2005 for both the 20% best and 20% worst days.
The amount of improvement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 at Haleakala NP is 1.38 delta deciview. Based on the projections of visibility, discussed above, the amount of improvement by 2018 would be 0.29 delta deciview. This would result in a 2018 level of visibility of 13.0 deciview at Haleakala.
The amount of improvement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 for Hawaii NP is 2.73 delta deciview. Based on the projections of visibility, discussed above, the amount of improvement by 2018 would be 0.18 delta deciview. This would result in a 2018 level of visibility of 18.7 deciview.
Therefore, the URP will not be met at either NP. Based on our analysis of the four reasonable progress factors above, we propose to determine that the rate of progress for the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable and that our progress goals are reasonable.
EPA has calculated the number of years it would take to reach natural conditions, based on the rate of visibility improvement in this first planning period. Because the baseline conditions include the effect of the emissions from the volcano, the calculation of number of years to reach natural conditions by control of anthropogenic emission does not represent a realistic scenario in this case. Based on the projected rate of improvement at Haleakala of 0.021 deciview per year, natural conditions would be met in 280 years. Based upon the projected rate of improvement at Hawaii Volcanoes NP, natural conditions would be met in over 800 years. If the volcano stops erupting, natural conditions would be met significantly sooner.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), if a state has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another state or states, each of the relevant states must consult with the other(s). Hawaii lies approximately 2,390 miles southwest of the Continental United States and has been included by EPA in the regional haze program, “because of the potential for emissions from sources within [its] borders to contribute to regional haze impairment in Class I areas also located within [Hawaii's] own jurisdiction,” 64 FR at 35720 (emphasis added). Therefore, we propose to determine that emissions from Hawaii are not reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another state or states. We also propose to determine that no emissions from any other state are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in either of Hawaii's mandatory Class I Federal areas.
The Regional Haze Rule also requires any state that has participated in a regional planning process, to “ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process” and to demonstrate the technical basis for this apportionment. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (iii). As noted above, both EPA and the state of Hawaii participated in the WRAP. The WRAP did not identify any obligation for emission reductions on the part of Hawaii. Therefore, we propose to determine that no additional emissions reductions are necessary in Hawaii to meet the progress goal for any mandatory Class I Federal area outside of Hawaii.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv), States are required to identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered in developing the long-term strategy, including major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. As explained in section III.C above, we have considered each of these categories in developing our long-term strategy.
The RHR requires that a state consider the following factors in developing an LTS: (a) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (b) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (c) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (d) source retirement and replacement schedules; (e) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (f) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (g) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). We address each of the factors below.
Our LTS incorporates emission reductions due to a number of ongoing air pollution control programs.
One of the primary regulatory tools for addressing visibility impairment from industrial sources under the Act is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD requirements apply to new major sources and major sources making a major modification in attainment areas.
EPA has promulgated a FIP for Hawaii, which incorporates the provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.27, 52.28, 52.29, to address RAVI in Hawaii.
Mobile source NO
An additional air pollution control program that will limit emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants in Hawaii is the North American Emissions Control Area (NA ECA). The United States Government, together with Canada and France, established the NA ECA under the auspices of Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty developed by the International Maritime Organization. This ECA will require use of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating within 200 nautical miles of the majority of the U.S. and Canadian coastline, including the U.S. Gulf Coast and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012. The ECA is expected to significantly reduce both NO
Potential
Hawaii DOH regulates emissions of air pollutants, including construction emissions, under Chapter 11–60.1 of Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). These rules generally prohibit the emission of any “regulated air pollutant” without the written approval of DOH. HAR § 11–60.1–2.
In addition to fugitive dust, another potential source of visibility-impairing pollutants from construction activities is fuel-burning construction equipment and vehicles. Emissions from construction equipment are reflected in the non-road mobile source category of the Hawaii Emissions Inventory,
Given the significant decreases in this category expected from ongoing pollution control measures, we propose that no additional measures are needed to mitigate the impact of construction activities during this time period. However, as noted above, coarse mass contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation on the 20% worst days and 17% on the 20% best days at Haleakala. It is unknown how much of this coarse mass derives from fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, for the next planning period, a detailed study of the source contribution to coarse mass and soil measured at the Haleakala Crater Class 1 area monitors is needed. Depending on the results of this study, further regulation of fugitive dust emissions, including construction emissions, may be appropriate.
As explained above, we are proposing to place a 3,550 tpy cap on SO
In order to assess potential source retirements and replacements during the first implementation period, our contractor, ICF, reviewed the last set of Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) for HECO and its subsidiaries. In its IRP, HECO indicated that Wauai Units 3 and 4 would be placed into emergency reserve or retired in 2011 and 2014, respectively. HELCO, MECO, and Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) had no plans to retire any of their units in their last IRP.
It should be noted, however, that existing state legislation and voluntary measures by the Hawaiian utilities are likely to result in further reductions in oil-fired electricity generating units in Hawaii by 2018. In particular, Hawaii's current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires each electric utility company in the state to achieve the following percentages of renewable electrical energy sales:
• 10% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2010;
• 15% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2015;
• 25% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2020; and
• 40% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2030.
In addition, as part of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, the State of Hawaii, Division of Consumer Advocacy of the Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs, and the Hawaiian Electric Companies have entered into an “Energy Agreement”, which includes an extensive list of renewable energy commitments and related provisions.
Hawaii's agricultural fire emissions come from crop waste combustion of over roughly 30,000 acres of sugarcane, which is cultivated mostly on Maui. Burn permits are required under HAR § 11–60.1–53
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) of the Regional Haze Rule requires us to ensure that emission limitations and control measures used to meet RPGs are enforceable. As described above, we are proposing that cumulative SO
The sources will be required to measure the sulfur content (weight percent), heat value (million British thermal units per gallon (MMBtu/gal)) and total gallons of fuel burned at each of the affected units. Based on these
As described above, total statewide anthropogenic emissions of NO
Our analysis of the monitoring data indicates that visibility impacts of SO
Our visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as explained in section IV.G, above. Under our RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304.
Because Hawaii has not submitted a SIP to address RAVI, EPA previously promulgated a FIP for Hawaii, which incorporates the provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.27, 52.28, 52.29 to address RAVI. We propose to find that the Regional Haze FIP appropriately supplements and augments EPA's FIP for RAVI visibility provisions by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions to address regional haze. We discuss the relevant monitoring provisions further below.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the FIP contain a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the IMPROVE network. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being achieved. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI and regional haze, EPA will rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be needed in the future. Further information on monitoring methods and monitor locations can be found in the docket.
Currently there are two IMPROVE monitoring sites operating in or near the Haleakala NP. The Haleakala (HALE1) IMPROVE monitoring site is located outside of the Haleakala NP near the Maui Central Valley, at an elevation of 1153 meters. The HALE1 IMPROVE monitoring site began operation at end of 2000, and will end operation in May, 2012. The Haleakala Crater (HACR1) IMPROVE monitoring site is at the park's Western boundary, at an elevation of 2158 meters. The HACR1 IMPROVE monitoring site began operation in 2007. In this proposal, EPA is proposing to use monitoring data from the HALE1 monitoring site as a basis for establishing baseline visibility, because the HACR1 site was not yet in operation for the base year time period of 2000–2004. Future regional haze planning efforts need to be based on data collected at the HACR1 site.
Hawaii DOH has prepared two reports comparing the two IMPROVE monitoring sites at Haleakala NP,
Under section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act, we are required to consult with the appropriate FLM(s) before holding a public hearing on the Hawaii Regional Haze FIP. We must also include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in this notice. Both EPA and Hawaii DOH have consulted informally with the FLMs throughout the development of the Hawaii Regional Haze FIP. Most recently, we consulted with the FLMs by phone on March 26 and April 5, 2012.
In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze FIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by 40 CFR subpart P, including development and review of implementation plan revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. We intend to continue to consult with the FLMs
EPA is proposing to establish an emissions cap of 3,550 tons of SO
This proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The proposed Hawaii Regional Haze FIP requires implementation of emissions controls for SO
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The three sources in question are electric generating plants that are owned by the Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO), which is an electric utility subsidiary of HECO. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote 1, an electric utility firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours (MWH). In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, HELCO generated or purchased a total of 1,186.6 MWH.
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The proposed Hawaii Regional Haze FIP does not have federalism implications. This action 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. In this action, EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty under CAA Section 110(c) to promulgate a Regional Haze FIP following its finding that Hawaii had failed to submit a regional haze SIP. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
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 interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population.
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
2. Section 52.633 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) Regional Haze Plan Provisions.
(1)
(2)
Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers identified in paragraph (d)(1).
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) All records, including support information, required by this paragraph (5) shall be maintained for at least five (5) years from the date of the measurement, test or report. These records shall be in a permanent form suitable for inspection and made available to EPA, the Hawaii Department of Health or their representatives upon request.
(ii) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall maintain records of fuel deliveries identifying the delivery dates and the type and amount of fuel received. The fuel to be fired in the boilers shall be sampled and tested in accordance with the most current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods.
(iii) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall analyze a representative sample of each batch of fuel received for its sulfur content and heat value following ASTM D4057. The samples shall be analyzed for the total sulfur content of the fuel using ASTM D129, or alternatively D1266, D1552, D2622, D4294, or D5453.
(iv) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall calculate on a monthly basis the SO
(v) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall calculate on a monthly basis the total emissions for all units for the preceding twelve (12) months.
(vi) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph (1) shall notify the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 of any exceedance of the emission cap in paragraph (d)(3) within thirty (30) days of such exceedance.
(vii) Within sixty (60) days following the end of each calendar year, the owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall report to the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 the total tons of SO
(viii) Any document (including reports) required to be submitted by this rule shall be certified as being true, accurate, and complete by a responsible official and shall be mailed to the following addresses: