National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Antitrust Division
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Wage and Hour Division
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Wage and Hour Division
Copyright Royalty Board
Fiscal Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Fiscal Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
Final rule.
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is adopting as final, without changes, an interim rule for SIGAR employees that will supplement the executive branch-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct (Standards) issued by OGE. The final supplemental regulation includes a requirement that SIGAR employees obtain prior approval for certain types of outside activities. The interim final rule was published in the
Effective Date: June 29, 2012.
On April 6, 2012, SIGAR published, with OGE concurrence, in the
SIGAR provided a 60-day comment period that ended on June 5, 2012. SIGAR received no comments and will not be making any changes to the interim final rule. Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule, SIGAR has determined, with OGE concurrence, to adopt the interim final rule without change as a final rule.
For a detailed analysis of this final rule, see the preamble of the interim final rule as published in 77 FR 20697.
This document affirms as final, without change, the interim final rule that is already in effect. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1103(b)(1) and 1105, these regulations are not subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, at 5 U.S.C. 553 (b), (c), and (d), because they apply solely to SIGAR or its employees.
As Acting Inspector General of SIGAR, I have determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will primarily affect SIGAR employees.
As Acting Inspector General of SIGAR, I have determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply to this rule, because it does not contain any information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and would not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
I have determined that this rule is not a rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804 and, thus, does not require review by Congress.
In promulgating this rule, SIGAR has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Executive Order, since it deals with agency organization, management, and personnel matters and is not in any way event deemed “significant” thereunder.
As Acting Inspector General of SIGAR, I have reviewed this rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
For the reasons stated above, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics, is submitting the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 5 CFR part 9303, which was published at 77 FR 20697 on April 6, 2012, is adopted as a final rule without change.
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 899, revised as of July 1, 2011, the following corrections are made:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-meter safety zone in the navigable waters, from the surface to seabed, around the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER, while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells at various prospects located in the Chukchi and/or Beaufort Seas Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, on or about July 1, 2012 through November 30, 2012. See TABLE 1. The purpose of the temporary safety zone is to protect the drillship from vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways. Placing a safety zone around the drillship will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, which could result in oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment. Lawful demonstrations may be conducted outside of the safety zone.
The temporary safety zone becomes effective on July 1, 2012, and terminates on December 1, 2012, unless sooner terminated by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2012-0024 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Jason Smilie, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi); telephone 907-463-2809,
On February 23, 2012 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone; NOBLE DISCOVERER, Outer Continental Shelf Drillship, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska” in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Collectively they provide the authority for the Coast Guard to establish safety zones on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters, from the surface to seabed, around the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells in several prospects located in the Chukchi and/or Beaufort Seas during the 2012 drilling season.
The request for the temporary safety zone was made by Shell Exploration & Production Company due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the NOBLE DISCOVERER and the environment. Shell Exploration & Production Company indicated that it is highly likely that any allision or inability to identify, monitor or mitigate any risks or threats, including ice-related hazards that might be encountered, could result in a catastrophic event. Incursions into the safety zone by unapproved vessels could degrade the ability to monitor and mitigate such risks. In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including but not limited to: (1) The level of shipping activity around the operation; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessel; (3) concerns for the environment given the sensitivity of the environmental and subsistence importance to the indigenous population; (4) the lack of any established shipping fairways, fueling and supply storage/operations, and size of the crew increase the likelihood that an allision could result in a catastrophic event; (5) the recent and potential future maritime traffic in the vicinity of the areas; (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the area; (7) the structural configuration of the vessel, and (8) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operation of the NOBLE DISCOVERER. For any group or individual intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of the NOBLE DISCOVERER, these demonstrations must be conducted outside the safety zone.
Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of the temporary safety zone. The regulation will significantly reduce the threat of allisions that could result in oil spills, and releases. Furthermore, the regulation will increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Chukchi and/or Beaufort Seas by prohibiting entry into the zone unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative. Due to the remote location and the need to protect the environment, the Coast Guard may use criminal sanctions to enforce the safety zone as appropriate.
The temporary safety zone will be around the NOBLE DISCOVERER while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells in various locations in the Chukchi and/or Beaufort Seas Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska during the 2012 timeframe.
Shell Exploration & Production Company has ten drill sites within the Burger, Sivulliq and Torpedo prospects of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska (See Table 1).
During the 2012 timeframe, Shell Exploration & Production Company has proposed drilling up to two exploration wells at the identified Chukchi and Beaufort Sea prospects depending on favorable ice conditions, weather, sea state, and any other pertinent factors. Each of these drill sites will be permitted for drilling in 2012 to allow for operational flexibility in the event sea ice conditions prevent access to one of the locations. The number of actual wells that will be drilled will depend on ice conditions and the length of time available for the 2012 drilling season. The predicted “average” drilling season, constrained by prevailing ice conditions and regulatory restrictions, is long enough for two to three typical exploration wells to be drilled.
The actual order of drilling activities will be controlled by an interplay between actual ice conditions immediately prior to movement of the NOBLE DISCOVERER, ice forecasts, any regulatory restrictions with respect to the dates of allowed operating windows, whether the planned drilling activity involves only drilling the shallow non-objective section or penetrating potential hydrocarbon zones, the availability of permitted sites having approved shallow hazards clearance, the anticipated duration of each contemplated drilling activity, the results of preceding wells and Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation plan requirements.
The planned exploration drilling in the identified lease blocks will be conducted with the NOBLE DISCOVERER. The NOBLE DISCOVERER is a true drillship, and is a large self-contained drilling vessel that offers full accommodations for up to 124 persons. The hull has been reinforced for ice resistance.
The NOBLE DISCOVERER has a “persons on board” capacity of 124, and it is expected to be at capacity for most of its operating period. The NOBLE DISCOVERER's personnel will include its crew, as well as Shell employees, third party contractors, Alaska Native Marine Mammal Observers and possibly Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) personnel.
While conducting exploration drilling operations, the NOBLE DISCOVERER will be anchored. The NOBLE DISCOVERER uses an anchoring system consisting of an 8-point anchored mooring spread attached to the onboard turret and could have a maximum anchor radius of 3,600 ft (1,100 m). The anchor spread, which radiates from the center of the NOBLE DISCOVERER, may pose a fouling hazard to any vessel attempting to anchor within the anchor spread. Fouling of the NOBLE DISCOVERER anchor lines may endanger the drillship, its 124 persons onboard the third party vessel, persons onboard the third party vessel and the environment.
The center point of the NOBLE DISCOVERER will be positioned within the prospect location in the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea at the coordinates listed below (See Table 1).
The NOBLE DISCOVERER will transit through the Bering Strait on or about July 1, 2012 and onto a prospect location when ice allows. Drilling will be curtailed on or before October 31, 2012. The drillship and support vessels will depart the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas at the conclusion of the 2012 drilling season.
Three submissions with comments on the proposed rule were received. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
One comment was received suggesting that the safety zone be issued for a multi-year period similar to safety zones in the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard disagrees. While the Coast Guard understands that the underlying justifications for the safety zone are not likely to change from year to year, we find that there are several operational and permitting variables with respect to these activities to support not continuing the safety zones period beyond the current 2012 drilling season as originally requested. Many of these variables would be considered substantive changes. Some of the factors that dictate a season by season publication of the safety zone include the possibility that a different vessel will be utilized for the exploratory wells; changes in the published prospect/drilling locations and corresponding latitude/longitude coordinates; significant changes in any approved future Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plans, and the limited timeframe each year (approximately 4 to 5 months) associated with actual on site activity. The nature of this activity as noted above is not currently comparable to the “manned production facility” operations in the Gulf of Mexico in that those safety zones are established for year-round operations on permanent structures that are engaged in the exploration and production of sub-sea resources. The Coast Guard will reconsider the temporary nature of these safety zones should the nature of the operations significantly change from solely seasonal exploratory drilling operations.
One comment asked for a clarification with regard to the probability of a catastrophic event resulting from an
One comment requested flexibility with respect to the effective dates of the temporary safety zone to allow for certain non-drilling demobilization activities. The Coast Guard understands the nature of the post-drilling activity and agrees that the safety zone effective period should be extended to provide that needed flexibility through November 30, 2012, but only while the vessel is on location as listed in Table 1 of the rule. The purpose of this change is to ensure the rule remains effective while the KULLUK completes demobilization activities on location, thereby enhancing the safety of the personnel aboard the OCS facility and the environment. The Coast Guard has amended the final rule to reflect the new effective termination date of December 1, 2012, so long as the vessel is on location and engaged in exploratory drilling demobilization activities until this date.
One comment requested flexibility with respect to dates the drilling rigs will be engaged in exploratory drilling, noting that the commencement of drilling activities may not be on July 1, 2012. The Coast Guard agrees and is amending language relating to the commencement of drilling activity to be “on or about” July 1, 2012.
One comment requested flexibility with respect to locations drilling rigs will be operating to state “Chukchi and/or Beaufort Seas” as opposed to “Chukchi and Beaufort Seas,” to avoid possible confusion. The Coast Guard agrees and is amending the regulation accordingly.
One comment requested the rule be amended to have the safety zone in effect once the vessels is “on location” while the mooring system is being deployed or recovered not only when the vessel is anchored. The Coast Guard agrees. The safety factors that were evaluated in determining that a safety zone was warranted while the vessel was anchored on location are substantially similar for when the vessel is on location and the mooring system is in the process of being deployed or recovered. The Coast Guard has amended § 147-T17.0024 to read: “The navigable waters, from the surface to seabed, within 500 meters (1,640.4 feet) from each point on the outer edge of the vessel, while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location, is a safety zone.”
Two comments recommended an extension of the outer boundaries of the safety zone to include the anchor chain extending from the OCS facilities; one comment recommended an extension to 1,500 meters from the vessel, the other recommended the zone extend to 50 meters beyond the anchor marker buoys of the mobile drilling vessel. The safety zone extends the maximum distance permitted as per 33 CFR § 147.15, which establishes the limits of a safety zone at a distance of “500 meters around the OCS facility.” Further, the determination that the outer edge of the OCS facility is marked by the physical structure of the drilling rig not to include any area encompassed by the anchor spread is consistent with other safety zones established for other similar OCS facilities operating on the Outer Continental Shelf, which is a 500 meter enforcement radius from the outer edge of the OCS facility structure.
One comment stated the safety zone should be a moving safety zone and that it should be extended to all support and tow vessels involved in the operation and referenced previous safety zones established by the Coast Guard as precedent. The safety zones referenced by the commenter were established under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1226(b)), under which the Coast Guard agrees it has the authority to establish moving safety zones for any vessel operating within the U.S. territorial seas. The safety zone encompasses areas outside of the U.S. territorial seas and extends to the maximum extent permitted by 33 CFR 147.10 which provides a maximum enforcement area of 500 meters from the OCS facility. 33 CFR § 147 does not permit establishment of safety zones for non-OCS facilities. With respect to moving safety zones, safety zones may only be enforced while the OCS facility is being constructed, maintained, or operated on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Department of State, has determined that this definition does not include times where the OCS facility is in transit and not directly engaged in activity related to the exploration or extraction of mineral resources. Accordingly, the safety zone cannot be implemented or enforced during times where the OCS facility is in transit. With respect to vessel movements within the U.S. territorial seas, the Coast Guard is establishing separate moving safety zones under the PWSA through a separate rulemaking process which will include safety zones for support and tow vessels in addition to OCS facilities during periods of transit within the 12 nautical mile territorial sea in the vicinity of Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
One comment requested specific language granting State and Local officer's enforcement authority under 46 U.S.C. 70118, similar to safety zones established by the Coast Guard for the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Title 46 U.S.C. 70118 provides authority for state or local law enforcement officers to make arrests for safety zones established under the PWSA or Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (DPA) (33 U.S.C. 1509(d)). The PWSA does not apply for safety zones established outside of the territorial seas of the United States, and the DPA does not apply to the drillship to which the safety zone applies. The authority to implement this particular safety zone is based upon the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and 33 CFR 147. Accordingly, State and Local law enforcement officers do not have the authority to take law enforcement action due to the location of the safety zone.
One comment stated that the safety zone is overbroad and unnecessarily restricts first amendment rights. We disagree. The safety zones were created to facilitate safe navigation and promote the conduct of safe operations for entities engaging in lawful activities. However, actions taken which may potentially endanger or threaten either the individuals operating within this zone or the OCS facility within this zone will be subject to law enforcement action. There are no prohibitions on persons exercising free speech; however, actions that endanger persons or property within the safety zone are prohibited. Unauthorized vessels operating within this safety zone create an unnecessary risk to all vessels within the zone, including themselves. The Coast Guard determined this to be the best course of action given the complexities in the Arctic, which includes ice management issues, Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation plan requirements, the lack of infrastructure in the Arctic, and a harsh, dynamic offshore environment. These complexities dictate reducing unnecessary risks associated with vessels not engaged in natural resource extraction activities operating near the NOBLE DISCOVERER in order to significantly reduce the threat of allisions and oil spills, and at the same time increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Coast Guard believes that the 500-meter safety zone is ideal because it still provides sufficient area for persons to peacefully assemble or engage in legitimate protest activities outside of the safety zone.
One comment opined that the Coast Guard should be required to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA. While safety zones are typically categorically excluded from NEPA analysis, the Coast Guard anticipates that it will have more assets operating in the Arctic than normal due to increased vessel traffic in the Arctic. Consequently, the Coast Guard has undertaken an EA to determine the environmental impacts of its operations in the Arctic during the summer of 2012, and the enforcement of the subject safety zones has been included for consideration of cumulative impacts.
One comment pointed out that a preliminary environmental analysis checklist and categorical exclusion determination were stated to be available in the online record, but was not available. A preliminary determination was not completed. The Coast Guard is not required to provide a preliminary environmental analysis checklist and categorical exclusion determination for a temporary safety zone until publication of the Final Rule. The reasoning is that safety zones are generally categorically excluded, and the Coast Guard wanted to review all public comments before completing the environmental analysis checklist and categorical exclusion determination in order to ensure that it accounted for all concerns. The environmental analysis checklist and categorical exclusion determination for this temporary safety zone is available in the docket, and can be obtained online following the direction provided in the
One comment stated that the safety zones will cause increased air pollution because the air permits issued for the NOBLE DISCOVERER exclude air within the safety zones, and, therefore, the Coast Guard must undertake a “NEPA analysis” to determine the affects of any air emissions within the safety zone. The Coast Guard does not have the authority or agency expertise to issue air permits, and, therefore, does not have the authority to determine whether the issuance of those permits is appropriate. The safety zones are being implemented to enhance the safety of vessel operations during a period of increased vessel traffic at locations where any marine casualty will present unique challenges due to the remote locations, lack of infrastructure and unforgiving environmental variables.
One comment supported the determination to prohibit all vessels, irrespective of size from the safety zone. The Coast Guard determined this to be the best course of action given the complexities of this Arctic operation, which includes ice management issues, Marine Mammal and Mitigation plan requirements, and a harsh, dynamic offshore environment. The safety zones will significantly reduce the threat of allisions and oil spills, and at the same time increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. A change was also made to clarify that the subject safety zones include “the navigable waters, from the surface to seabed.”
The Coast Guard developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the NOBLE DISCOVERER on the Outer Continental Shelf and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Additional considerations were the relatively short period of time that the safety zone will be in effect and the limited size of the safety zone. Vessels traversing waters near the safety zone will be able to safely travel around the zone without incurring additional costs.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard has 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule could affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the Sivulliq and Torpedo Prospect of the Beaufort Sea, including Flaxman Island blocks 6610, 6658 and 6659, and Posey Blocks 6714, 6762, 6764, 6812, 6912, and 6915 in the Chukchi Sea. (See Table 1).
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will enforce a temporary safety zone around a drillship facility near Flaxman Island of the Beaufort Sea and/or at the Burger Prospect in the Chukchi Sea, which are both areas not frequented by vessel traffic and are not in close proximity to a safety fairway. Further, vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone without incurring additional costs.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this 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
This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This 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.
The Coast Guard has 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Coast Guard 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 a temporary final rule for a safety zone that will be established for 1 week or longer. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are included in the docket, and can be obtained online by following the directions delineated in the “ADDRESSES” section above. Nevertheless, while safety zones are typically categorically excluded from NEPA analysis the Coast Guard anticipates that it will have more assets operating in the Arctic Ocean than normal due to increased vessel traffic in the Arctic Ocean. Consequently, the Coast Guard has undertaken an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the environmental impacts of its overall operations in the Arctic Ocean during the summer of 2012, and the enforcement of the subject safety zones has been included for consideration of cumulative impacts. Public hearings on the draft EA were held on May 30, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska, and on May 31, 2012, in Barrow, Alaska.
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b) The navigable waters, from the surface to seabed, within 500 meters (1,640.4 feet) from each point on the outer edge of the vessel, while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location, is a safety zone. Lawful demonstrations may be conducted outside of the safety zone.
(c)
(1) An attending vessel; or
(2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District to act on his or her behalf.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary Final Rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing two safety zones to remain in effect throughout the duration of the construction and renewal of the Sellwood Bridge located on the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels transiting in close proximity to cranes, barges, and temporary structures associated with this construction project. During the effective period, all vessels will be required to remain at the prescribed safe distance from the construction area while transiting in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge project; however, the establishment of these safety zones does not entirely close this section of the Willamette River. The section of the Willamette River between the safety zones will remain open for vessel transits, and it will have a minimum channel width of 138 feet at all times.
This rule is effective from July 1, 2012 until January 31, 2015.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0131 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this Temporary Final Rule, call or email ENS Ian McPhillips, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard MSU Portland; telephone 503-240-9319, email
On May 14, 2012 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Sellwood Bridge Project, Willamette River (77 FR 15009). We received no comments on the proposed rule. There were no requests made for public meeting regarding this rule and none were held. No other documents have been published for this rulemaking.
The Sellwood Bridge project will replace the existing 86 year old bridge that is structurally inadequate and functionally obsolete. The project will renew the bridge with a new deck arch structure compliant with current loading and seismic requirements, upgrade the interchange at Oregon Route 43, and provide substantially improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Construction work will continue through January 1, 2015. The project includes the construction of two temporary structures and two new bridge piers which will each require a cofferdam. The temporary structures will be constructed to facilitate the moving of the older bridge. To ensure the safety of construction crews on the barges, temporary structures, and cranes, two safety zones on each side of the river are being established to require vessels in the vicinity of the construction area to remain outside of the two designated safety zones. Additionally, these safety zones will ensure that the vessels operating in the vicinity of the designated area will not be in any dangerous areas near the temporary structures or cranes.
The rule establishes two safety zones that cover all waters of the Willamette River; however, the establishment of these safety zones does not entirely close this section of the Willamette River. The section of the Willamette River between the safety zones will remain open for vessel transits, and it will have a minimum channel width of 138 feet at all times. The safety zone on the western river bank encompasses all waters of the Willamette River within the following four points:
The safety zone on the eastern river bank is encompassed within the following four points:
Geographically this rule covers the waters of the Willamette River for two
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 Coast Guard has made this determination based on the fact that the safety zones created by this rule will not significantly affect the maritime public because vessels may still transit in the vicinity of the safety zones.
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 entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the area covered by the safety zones. The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the area can still be used to transit through this section of the river, which will maintain a minimum width of 138 feet. Other maritime users, such as dragon boats, kayaks, and canoes, will be able to transit around the safety zones or through the open section.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact ENS Ian McPhillips, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email
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 Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such any expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interferences 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
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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, 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; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) The safety zone on the eastern river bank encompasses all waters of the Willamette River within the following four points:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
In this action we are approving into the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) the addition of a new rule that sets volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions limits and other restrictions on consumer products that are sold, supplied, manufactured, or offered for sale in the State of Indiana.
This rule is effective August 28, 2012, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 30, 2012. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-1050, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
“Consumer products” encompass a wide array of sprays, gels, cleaners, adhesives, and other chemically formulated products that are purchased for personal or institutional use and that emit VOCs through their use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition. On December 7, 2010, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) requested that EPA approve into its SIP the addition of a new rule that limits VOC in consumer products. The rule is located within Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) Article 8 “Volatile Organic Compound Rules” at 326 IAC 8-15. The rule consists of the following nine sections:
The rule that Indiana adopted and submitted to EPA for approval is based on the model rule developed by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) for consumer products. The OTC is a multi-state organization created under section 176A of the Clean Air Act. It is responsible for advising EPA on transport issues and for developing and implementing regional solutions to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.
The OTC has developed this model rule for consumer products which OTC member states have signed a memorandum of understanding to adopt. The OTC model rule that Indiana based its rule on is at least as stringent as, and in most cases is more stringent than, EPA's national consumer products rule, “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products,” 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. It should be noted that Indiana is not an OTC member state. By adopting a rule that mirrors the OTC model rule, however, Indiana is strengthening its SIP through enforceable VOC limits for consumer products with corresponding recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
The following is a summary of each section of 326 IAC 8-15 “Standards for Consumer and Commercial Products,” as submitted on November 7, 2010, and a discussion of why each section is approvable into the State's SIP.
This section makes 326 IAC 8-15 applicable to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures consumer products in the State of Indiana on or after June 1, 2011. The applicability for the rule as outlined in this section is congruent with the model OTC language, and therefore is approvable for inclusion in Indiana's SIP.
This section provides definitions of products, terms, acronyms, and other language that are unique and/or specific to this rule. This section is congruent with the OTC model rule, and therefore is approvable for inclusion in Indiana's SIP.
This section codifies VOC standards for each category of consumer products affected by 326 IAC 8-15 and includes additional requirements for certain product categories. Each category of consumer product and its associated VOC limit mirror the OTC model rule as do additional requirements for certain product categories, including:
This section is at least as stringent as the OTC model rule, and therefore is approvable for inclusion in Indiana's SIP.
This section outlines conditions for certain products that may allow them to be exempt from 326 IAC 8-15, including an exemption for products manufactured in the State but meant for sale outside the State. This section also allows a retailer (but not manufacturer) to not be considered in violation of 326 IAC 8-15 if they immediately discontinue sale of the violating product, and make good faith efforts to assure the product met the applicable requirements of 326 IAC 8-15. Finally, this section excludes any products that are regulated under this rule from the administrative requirements of the rule if the products are registered under FIFRA. This section is congruent with the OTC model rule, and therefore is approvable.
This section allows for an exemption for products otherwise covered under 326 IAC 8-15, so long as the manufacturer has been granted an innovative products exemption by CARB or the air pollution control agency of another state with an innovative products exemption substantially equivalent to CARB's. This section then outlines additional requirements necessary for Indiana to consider an innovative products exemption to be valid within the State. Finally, this section outlines conditions in which the innovative products exemption can expire or be revoked by the State. This section is congruent with the OTC model rule, and therefore is approvable.
This section outlines circumstances in which a manufacturer of a product regulated under 326 IAC 8-15 can provide an alternative method to comply with the VOC limits contained in Indiana's rule. Only manufacturers who have been granted an alternative control plan by CARB, or a state air pollution control agency with alternative control plans to consumer product VOC limits that are substantially equivalent to CARB's alternative control plan, may be exempted from the VOC limits in Indiana's rule. The section also outlines circumstances in which an approved alternative control plan can be considered valid, or can be revoked by the State. This section is congruent with the OTC model rule, and therefore is approvable.
This section outlines product dating and labeling requirements for consumer products manufactured or sold in Indiana. This section also defines the most restrictive limit that a product must meet if it is regulated by FIFRA as well as 326 IAC 8-15. This section is congruent with the OTC model rule and therefore is approvable.
This section outlines the recordkeeping and reporting requirements that manufacturers of products regulated under this rule must meet. Manufacturers must keep and make available to Indiana or EPA information about their product, including:
This section also specifies which information a company may present to the State if it cannot meet the requirements listed above. Finally, this section contains special reporting requirements for products that contain perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. This section is congruent with the OTC model rule, and therefore is approvable.
This section outlines methods acceptable to the State that manufacturers can use to determine compliance with the VOC content limits outlined in the rule. Manufacturers may use CARB Method 310, a method approved in writing both by the State of Indiana and EPA, or through calculation of the VOC content of constituents used to make the product. This section also includes the approved method to test whether a product is a liquid or solid, and the approved method to determine the distillation points of petroleum distillate-based charcoal lighter materials. This section is congruent with the OTC model rule, and therefore is approvable.
EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP Title 326 IAC Article 8-15 as adopted by the State of Indiana and as submitted to EPA on December 7, 2010. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus,
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 28, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule; Interpretation.
The Coast Guard is establishing an alternate size threshold based on the measurement system established under the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, for oil spill response vessels, which are properly certificated under 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter L. The present size threshold of 500 gross register tons is based on the U.S. regulatory measurement system. This final rule provides an alternative for owners and operators of offshore supply vessels that may result in an increase in oil spill response capacity and capability. This final rule adopts, without change, the interim rule amending 46 CFR part 126 published in the
This final rule is effective June 29, 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-2011-0966 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 final rule, call or email Mr. Brian T. Ellis, Coast Guard Marine Safety Center; telephone 202-475-5636, email
On Monday, December 12, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule with request for comments entitled Alternate Tonnage Threshold for Oil Spill Response Vessels in the
The interim final rule published in the
This final rule establishes an alternate tonnage threshold at 6000 Gross Tonnage International Tonnage Convention (GT ITC) for oil spill response vessels (OSRVs) that are also certificated as offshore supply vessels (OSVs). The selected alternate tonnage threshold is consistent with a 6000 GT ITC alternate threshold established for OSVs in 1996.
Because this final rule provides for optional use of an alternative approach to meet an existing requirement, there is no mandatory cost to the public. The authority for this final rule is the 1996 Coast Guard Authorization Act (the Act) (Pub. L. 104-324), as codified in 46 U.S.C. 3702(f)(2)(A) and 14104(b).
The interim final rule, published in the
We developed this final 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 reviewed it under that Order.
This final rule establishes a tonnage threshold of 6000 GT ITC for OSRVs under the alternate tonnage framework, which offers a mechanism for the Coast Guard to regulate vessels under tonnages assigned using the convention measurement system, instead of the regulatory measurement system. Therefore, this final rule provides an option to owners of vessels certificated as OSVs (under 46 CFR subchapter L) to seek OSRV certification based on this alternate tonnage threshold. We believe that a vessel owner will opt to use the alternate tonnage framework described in this final rule only if it will be beneficial to the owner's business.
We expect this final rule to be beneficial to the public and to the maritime industry because it provides the opportunity to increase oil spill response capacity and capability.
This final rule provides for optional and voluntary use of an alternative approach to meet an existing requirement. Accordingly, there is no mandatory cost to the public.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), this rule is considered an interpretive rule and is not subject to the requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) for publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 601, it is not a rule that is subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Coast Guard issued this rule as an interpretive rule on December 12, 2011, as authorized by section 702 of the Act (Pub. L. 104-324; October 19, 1996). The Conference Report on the Act (H. Rept. 104-854) states that, because this rule is considered to be an interpretive rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
This final rule provides for optional and voluntary use of an alternative approach to owners of vessels certificated as OSVs to seek an OSRV certification based on an alternate tonnage threshold. We believe that a vessel owner will opt to use the alternate tonnage framework described in this final rule only if it will be beneficial to the owner's business. We expect this final rule to be beneficial to the public and to the maritime industry because it provides the opportunity to increase the availability and capacity of OSRVs.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Brian T. Ellis, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, Tonnage Division, 202-475-5636,
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 implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. It is well settled that States may not establish alternate tonnages for oil spill response vessels pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3702(f)(2)(A). Therefore, preemption is not an issue under Executive Order 13132.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The 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 (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 final 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 final rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction. Exclusion under paragraph (34)(d) applies because this final rule pertains to regulations concerning documentation and admeasurement of vessels. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 46 CFR part 126, which was published at 76 FR 77128 on December 12, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update policies on the submission of payment requests and receiving reports in electronic format.
Ms. Veronica Fallon, 571-372-6087.
DoD published a proposed rule at 76 FR 71928 on November 21, 2011, to update DFARS policies and procedures for electronic submission of payment requests and receiving reports through Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) and TRICARE Encounter Data System (TEDS). WAWF, which electronically interfaces with the primary DoD payment systems, is the accepted DoD system for generating invoices and receiving reports. TEDS is an accepted system for processing payment requests for rendered TRICARE health care services.
The capabilities of WAWF have expanded to enable use in additional environments by a wider variety of users. As such, this rule expands the use of WAWF for submission of payment requests and receiving reports and standardizes processes and instructions on the use of WAWF. The public comment period closed January 20, 2011. Six respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule.
DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments are provided as follows:
Changes to the proposed rule to clarify language were made at 232.7002 Policy, 232.7004 Prescription, and the Payment Clause at 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports. The new payment instruction clause at 252.232-7006, Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions, was changed to more clearly identify WAWF as DoD's method to receive payment requests and receiving reports and clarify language and to clarify instructions for completion of clause fill-ins.
In response to the concern regarding possible scenarios resulting from ambiguous terminology of the text, the language in question is deleted, leaving a clear statement. Likewise, deletion of this text served to resolve the comment concerning the intended use of the note following the paragraph.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD expects that this rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule incorporates WAWF's new capability of capturing receiving reports for contracts paid with a Governmentwide commercial purchase card and clarifies exceptions to the use of WAWF. The rule also consolidates and standardizes instructions to contractors on how to use the WAWF application. Furthermore, it eliminates locally defined methods that, in some cases, cause confusion and inefficiencies. It also incorporates the use of TEDS for medical services requiring Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act data not handled by WAWF.
DoD made small business awards to 47,000 companies in Fiscal Year 2011. With the exception of less than 7,000 companies that only received awards paid with a purchase card, this rule will simplify procedures by allowing contractors to use the same payment process and systems for all DoD shipments.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or record keeping requirements.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No significant alternatives have been identified that would accomplish the stated objectives of this rule.
This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 218, 232, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(j)
(a)(1) Contractors shall submit payment requests and receiving reports in electronic form, except for—
(i) Classified contracts or purchases when electronic submission and processing of payment requests could compromise the safeguarding of classified information or national security;
(ii) Contracts awarded by deployed contracting officers in the course of military operations, including, but not limited to, contingency operations as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13) or humanitarian or peacekeeping operations as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2302(8), or contracts awarded by contracting officers in the conduct of emergency operations, such as responses to natural disasters or national or civil emergencies, when access to Wide Area WorkFlow by those contractors is not feasible;
(iii) Purchases to support unusual or compelling needs of the type described in FAR 6.302-2, when access to Wide Area WorkFlow by those contractors is not feasible;
(iv) Cases in which DoD is unable to receive payment requests or possible acceptance in electronic form;
(v) Cases in which the contracting officer administering the contract for payment has determined, in writing, that electronic submission would be unduly burdensome to the contractor. In those cases, the contracting officer administering the contract shall furnish a copy of the determination to their Senior Procurement Executive; and
(2) When the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is used as the method of payment, only submission of the receiving report in electronic form is required.
(b) For payment of commercial transportation services provided under a Government rate tender or a contract for transportation services, the use of a DoD-approved electronic third party payment system or other exempted vendor payment/invoicing system (e.g., PowerTrack, Transportation Financial Management System, and Cargo and Billing System) is permitted.
(c) For submitting and processing payment requests and receiving reports for rendered health care services, use of TRICARE Encounter Data System as the electronic format is permitted.
(a) Except as provided in 232.7002(a), use the clause at 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports, in solicitations and contracts.
(b) Use the clause at 252.232-7006, Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions, when 252.232-7003 is used and neither 232.7003 (b) nor (c) apply. See PGI 232.7004 for instructions on completing the clause.
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) “Receiving report” means the data required by the clause at 252.246-7000, Material Inspection and Receiving Report.
(c) * * *
(3) DoD makes payment for rendered health care services using the TRICARE Encounter Data System (TEDS) as the electronic format; or
(4) When the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is used as the method of payment, only submission of the receiving report in electronic form is required.
As prescribed in 232.7004(b), use the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Have a designated electronic business point of contact in the Central Contractor Registration at
(2) Be registered to use WAWF at
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(*
(4)
(5)
(g)
(2) For technical WAWF help, contact the WAWF helpdesk at 866-618-5988.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule.
DoD is issuing an interim rule to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that address the acquisition of tents and other temporary structures.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2012-D015, using any of the following methods:
○
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inserting “DFARS Case 2012-D015” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2012-D015.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2012-D015” on your attached document.
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
This interim rule amends DFARS subpart 225.70 and the associated DFARS clauses at 252.212-7001 and
• Section 368 requires award of contracts that provide the best value, when acquiring tents and other temporary structures, regardless of whether purchased by DoD or by another agency on behalf of DoD.
• Section 821 amends 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the “Berry Amendment”), to extend the restriction requiring acquisition of domestic tents to include the structural components of tents, applicable to acquisitions that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. There is also an exception for domestic nonavailability (see DFARS 225.7002-2).
The interim rule provides a definition of “structural component of a tent” and also provides examples of the type of temporary structures covered by this regulation.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD does not expect this interim rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The objectives of this interim rule are to—
• Require that contracts for the acquisition of tents and other temporary structures provide best value, regardless of whether purchased by DoD or by another agency on behalf of DoD; and
• Extend the domestic source restriction of 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the “Berry Amendment”) to cover the structural components of tents, in order to promote the use of domestic materials and enhance growth of the United States economy.
The legal basis for this interim rule is sections 368 and 821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81).
The requirement to award contracts that provide best value to the Government does not have any impact on small business entities, because that is already a general requirement for all acquisitions.
The domestic source restriction on the structural components of tents may affect approximately 40 or less small business concerns at the prime contract level. Review of the Fiscal Year 2011 data on acquisition of items with product or service code 8340 (tents or tarpaulins) identified 49 actions with small business concerns (contracts or orders), estimated value of $48.6 million, of which about 10 percent appeared to be for other than tents (e.g., prefabricated metal buildings and components, metal household furnishings, or electrical equipment). The Federal Procurement Data System does not provide data on components, so it is not known the extent to which the providers of tents currently utilize domestic or foreign structural components. An exception may be granted if a component is domestically nonavailable. However, this rule promotes the use of domestic components, and should, therefore, be favorable to small entities that provide domestic structural components of tents. The requirements of the rule will not apply below the simplified acquisition threshold.
This rule does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD did not identify any significant alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of the statute. The rule specifically implements the statutory requirement.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012-D015) in correspondence.
This interim rule does not apply below the simplified acquisition threshold. Section 821 amends 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the “Berry Amendment”), which specifically exempts acquisitions below the simplified acquisition threshold. The “Berry Amendment”, implemented at DFARS clause 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities, specifically applies to contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items that are articles, items, specialty metals, or tools covered by the “Berry Amendment” (including tents and components of tents) (see section 8109 of Pub. L. 104-208) and is included in the clause list in DFARS clause 252.212-7001, Contract Terms and Conditions required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items.
Section 368 only imposes requirements on the internal operating procedures of DoD, and does not address application below the simplified acquisition threshold. Most acquisitions of tents and other temporary structures exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1901, simplified acquisition procedures are to be used to promote efficiency and economy in contracting to avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. Written acquisition plans are not required for acquisitions below the simplified acquisition threshold. Therefore, this rule does not apply to acquisitions of tents and other temporary structures below the simplified acquisition threshold.
This rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements sections 368 and 821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This requirement became effective upon enactment, December 23, 2011. This action is necessary in order to enable contracting officers to comply with this new requirement, which will promote the use of domestic materials and enhance growth of the United States economy. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), comments received in response to this interim rule will be
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(e)
(a) * * *
(3)
(i) When acquiring tents or other temporary structures for use by the Armed Forces, the contracting officer shall award contracts that provide the best value (see FAR 15.101). Temporary structures covered by this paragraph (a)(3)(i) are nonpermanent buildings, including tactical shelters, nonpermanent modular or pre-fabricated buildings, or portable or relocatable buildings, such as trailers or equipment configured for occupancy (see also DFARS 246.270-2)). Determination of best value includes consideration of the total life-cycle costs of such tents or structures, including the costs associated with any equipment, fuel, or electricity needed to heat, cool, or light such tents or structures (see FAR 7.105(a)(3)(i) and PGI 207.105(a)(3)(i)).
(ii) These requirements apply to any agency or department that acquires tents or other temporary structures on behalf of DoD (see FAR 17.503(d)(2)).
The addition and revision read as follows:
(a) * * *
(i) Means a component that contributes to the form and stability of the tent (e.g., poles, frames, flooring, guy ropes, pegs);
(ii) Does not include equipment such as heating, cooling, or lighting.
(b) * * *
(3) Tents and structural components of tents, tarpaulins, and covers.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add the Czech Republic as a qualifying country.
Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.
DoD is amending the DFARS to add the Czech Republic as a qualifying country. On April 18, 2012, the Secretary of Defense signed a new reciprocal defense procurement agreement with the Czech Minister of Defense. The agreement removes discriminatory barriers to procurements of supplies and services produced by industrial enterprises of the other country to the extent mutually beneficial and consistent with national laws, regulations, policies, and international obligations. The agreement does not cover construction or construction material.
“Publication of proposed regulations”, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment. Adding the Czech Republic to the list of 21 other countries that have similar reciprocal defense procurement agreements with DoD does not alter the substantive meaning of the basic DoD policy on contracting with qualifying country sources. Accordingly, the change does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD, and will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.
This rule affects the certification and information collection requirements in the provisions at DFARS 252.225-7000, 252.225-7020, currently approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0229, titled DFARS Part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and Associated Clauses, in the amount of 57,235 hours, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The impact, however, is negligible, because it merely shifts the category under which items from the Czech Republic must be listed.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a)
(a) * * *
(a) * * *
“Qualifying country” means a country with a reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding or international agreement with the United
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule modifies the regulations implementing the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to allow vessels issued a Federal skate permit and a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization to fish for skates in a portion of southern New England (SNE) from July 1 through October 31 of each year, outside of the NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) program. This action allows vessels to harvest skates in a manner that is consistent with the bycatch reduction objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP.
Effective July 1, 2012.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the Secretarial Amendment that describes this action and other considered alternatives, and provides an analysis of the impacts of the approved measures and alternatives. Copies of the Secretarial Amendment, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Daniel Morris, Acting Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also available online at
Travis Ford, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9233; fax 978-281-9135; email:
Current regulations, implemented under Framework Adjustment 9 (60 FR 19364, April 18, 1995) and expanded under Amendment 7 to the FMP (61 FR 27710, May 31, 1996), contain a NE multispecies fishing mortality and bycatch reduction measure that is applied to the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), and SNE Exemption Areas found in 50 CFR § 648.80. A vessel may not fish in these areas unless it is fishing under a NE multispecies or a scallop DAS allocation, is fishing with exempted gear, is fishing under the Small Vessel Handgear (A or B) or Party/Charter permit restrictions, or is fishing in an exempted fishery. The procedure for adding, modifying, or deleting fisheries from the list of exempted fisheries is found in 50 CFR § 648.80. A fishery may be exempted by the Regional Administrator (RA), after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), if the RA determines, based on available data or information, that the bycatch of regulated species is, or can be reduced to, less than 5 percent by weight of the total catch and that such exemption will not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the FMP.
Representatives from the NE multispecies sector fleet submitted an exempted fishery request to the RA on April 1, 2011. The petitioners requested that NMFS consider an exempted fishery for trawl vessels using 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh nets and targeting skate bait in a portion of SNE from June through November of each year (referred to in the EA and in this rule as Alternative 2). Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and at-sea monitoring (ASM) data were compiled and analyzed with reference to groundfish vessels targeting skate in the area and months requested for the exemption. A second alternative was assessed that reduced both the size of the exempted area and the requested season from June through November to July through October (referred to in the EA and in this rule as Alternative 1). The data best supported Alternative 1, revealing that bycatch of regulated species (primarily winter flounder and windowpane flounder) was substantially reduced from the original proposal by reducing the area and contracting the time period.
On April 27, 2012, a proposed rule was published in the
The RA has determined that an exempted skate bait trawl fishery in a specifically defined portion of SNE meets the exemption requirements in § 648.80(a)(8)(i). Analysis of available data indicate that bycatch of regulated species by vessels targeting skate bait in that portion of SNE is less than 5 percent, by weight, of the total catch. Also, the RA has determined that the exemption will not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the FMP because this exemption does not increase the demand for skate bait and is not expected to increase fishing for skate bait. Due to this exemption, common pool vessels will have more DAS available to target multispecies; however, DAS are not considered a limiting factor in the common pool. Further, Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) for each stock will prevent the overharvest of any species. Based on these determinations, the RA is exempting eligible vessels from the prohibition against fishing while not on a DAS in a portion of SNE from July through
The SNE Skate Bait Trawl Exemption Area is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting the area are available from the RA upon request):
As required by existing regulations, vessels participating in the exempted skate fishery will need to hold a Federal skate permit and a valid Skate Bait Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the RA containing an exemption from the skate wing possession limits, which will allow them to land whole skates for use as bait. A participating vessel may possess and land up to 25,000 lb (9,072 kg) of whole skates of less than 23 inches (59 cm) total length. In addition, vessels will be limited by the skate bait Total Allowable Landings (TAL) that is divided into three seasons to help maintain a supply of bait throughout the fishing year. When 90 percent of the seasonal quota is landed in either Season 1 or 2, or when 90 percent of the annual skate bait TAL is landed, the RA will close the directed fishery by reducing the skate bait possession limit to the whole weight equivalent of the skate wing possession limit in effect at that time (either 5,902 lb (2,677 kg); 9,307 lb (4,222 kg); or 1,135 lb (515 kg)).
For additional details regarding the SNE Skate Bait Trawl Exemption Area, please see the proposed rule for this action.
No comments were received.
There are no changes from the proposed measures in this final rule.
NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator, NMFS, finds that a waiver of the 30-day delay in the rule's effectiveness is justified under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule “recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction[.]” Currently, vessels fishing for skates in the SNE must use a groundfish DAS. This rule creates an exemption to the DAS requirement and allows vessels fishing in a portion of the SNE with 6.5 inch (16.5-cm) net mesh during part of the year to fish without using a DAS. As a result, more DAS will be available to vessels to fish specifically for groundfish rather than have them used on skate trips that catch very small amounts of groundfish. Because this rule recognizes an exemption and relieves a restriction by eliminating the requirement that vessels use NE Multispecies DAS while targeting skate bait in SNE, the 30-day delay in effectiveness may be waived pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
The Assistant Administrator also finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay because such a delay would be contrary to the public interest by potentially preventing sector members from realizing the full potential savings in discards and DAS. The exemption would ordinarily be in effect from July 1 to October 31, but the 30-day delay in effectiveness would reduce the duration of the exemption in 2012 by nearly 25 percent. Currently, sector members in the SNE area have an elevated groundfish discard rate applied to skate trips fished under groundfish DAS. The elevated discard rate applied to skate trips and use of DAS on skate trips costs sector members approximately $24,000 each year. Delaying the effective date of this rule could prevent the sector members from obtaining the full amount of cost savings. Further, waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness will not cause any hardship for regulated entities because this rule does not create any new obligations or otherwise require trawl operators to make modifications to equipment or processes. Therefore, the primary rationale for the 30-day delay—to provide regulated entities with time to prepare for new rules—does not apply to this rule.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) has been prepared, which describes the economic impacts that this rule will have on small entities. The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts and analysis summarized in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule for this action, and the corresponding economic analyses prepared for this action in the EA and the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The contents of these documents are not repeated in detail here. Copies of the IRFA, the RIR, and the EA are available upon request (see
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. This action does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This rule creates a new skate bait trawl exemption area for trawl vessels targeting skate bait in SNE. This action was compared to two different alternatives for the exemption. Alternatives to the selected exemption include exempting a larger portion of SNE for a longer period of time, from June through November, and the No Action alternative, which would continue to require vessels targeting skate bait in this area to be on a declared NE multispecies trip from July through October.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial fishing entity as a firm with gross receipts not exceeding $4 million. In Rhode Island, there are two major dealers involved in the skate bait market. One reports supplying skate bait to 100 lobster businesses located in Point Judith, Wickford, Newport, Westerly, and Jamestown, RI, along with businesses scattered throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts. The company buys skate bait from 12-15 vessels throughout the year. The lobster businesses supplied by the company employ between two and four crewmembers per vessel. The other major skate dealer in Rhode Island supplies local Newport, Sakonnet, and New Bedford, MA, vessels and numerous offshore lobster vessels fishing in the Gulf of Maine. Skates are supplied to this dealer from draggers working out of Newport and Tiverton, RI, and New Bedford, MA.
Due to direct, independent contracts between draggers and lobster vessels, landings of skates are estimated to be under-documented. While skate bait is always landed (rather than transferred at sea), it is not always reported because it can be sold directly to lobster vessels by non-federally permitted vessels, which
This action is expected to benefit the local fishing communities that have historically depended on the skate bait fishery in SNE. This exemption was requested by members of the NE multispecies fishing industry, specifically members of a sector that fishes in the SNE area. The cost of fishing for skate bait has become increasingly high primarily due to the deduction of calculated discards from each vessel's sector's Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) when fishing under a groundfish DAS. This exemption will allow vessels to target skate bait outside of the DAS program, which will prevent the discards being deducted from their sector's ACE at a higher rate than is actually occurring. The EA for this action estimates that the exemption could save the fleet approximately $24,489.79 a year in discards and DAS alone.
With the elimination of these low discard trips from the sector's discard stratum, the overall discard rate for the sector will likely increase because skate bait trips that were observed were keeping the discard rate for trips targeting groundfish artificially low. While this change will result in an increase of the discard rate for the skate bait vessel's original discard stratum, the increase will not represent a significant cost to the SNE sector vessels that are not participating in the exemption and is outweighed by the benefit of the exemption. In addition, the calculated discard rates for both groundfish vessels and skate bait vessels will be more accurate as a result of the exemption; more accurate discards are not expected to have an economic effect on the fishing community as a whole. Further, participation in this exemption is voluntary. A vessel may still choose to target skate bait during the exemption while on a DAS should they feel it is to their benefit.
The impacts of Alternative 2, which extends the exemption an additional 2 months over a larger area, would be expected to be similar to the impacts of Alternative 1, but the expanded area and time would allow more vessels a greater opportunity to participate in the exempted fishery. The EA for this action estimates that Alternative 2 would save the industry an additional $ 3,739.37 compared to Alternative 1, for a total savings of $28,229.16. However, the months of June and November showed an increased number of trips that caught over 5 percent groundfish, and a large portion of the area could not be evaluated because there were no observer or ASM data available. Providing an exemption for trips that caught over 5 percent groundfish, or for areas for which no data are available, would be contrary to the current regulations. Therefore, this alternative was not selected.
The No Action Alternative would have a negative economic impact on SNE skate bait vessels relative to Alternative 1. This exemption was requested because of the economic burden that the cost of DAS and calculated discards had on sector fishermen targeting skate bait. As described above, it is estimated that this exemption could save the fleet approximately $24,489.79 a year in discards and DAS alone compared to the No Action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, sector fishermen targeting skate bait would continue fishing on DAS only to be charged a higher than observed groundfish discard rate for their trip targeting skate bait. The skate bait fishery is a valuable resource to those fishing in SNE. The groundfish discards that are attributed to these trips come directly out of the vessel's sector's ACE, which takes away the opportunity to catch these fish in the future.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a small entity compliance guide, which will be sent to all holders of permits issued for the NE skate fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter) are available from the Regional Administrator (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(k) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Violate any of the provisions of § 648.80, including paragraphs (a)(5), the Small-mesh Northern Shrimp Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(6), the Cultivator Shoal Whiting Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(9), Small-mesh Area 1/Small-mesh Area 2; (a)(10), the Nantucket Shoals Dogfish Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(11), the GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(12), the Nantucket Shoals Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(13), the GOM/GB Monkfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(14), the GOM/GB Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(15), the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (a)(16), the GOM Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (a)(18), the Great South Channel Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (b)(3), exemptions (small mesh); (b)(5), the SNE Monkfish and Skate Trawl Exemption Area; (b)(6), the SNE Monkfish and Skate Gillnet Exemption Area; (b)(8), the SNE Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (b)(9), the SNE Little Tunny Gillnet Exemption Area; (b)(11), the SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; or (b)(12), the SNE Skate Bait Trawl Exemption Area. Each violation of any provision in § 648.80 constitutes a separate violation.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi)
(12)
(i)
(ii)
(B) Vessels must use trawl gear, as specified in § 648.80(b)(2)(i).
(C) Vessels must possess an active skate bait letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, as specified in § 648.322(c) and fish pursuant to the terms of authorization.
(D) Fishing may only occur from July 1 through October 31 of each fishing year.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Preliminary draft regulatory basis; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is making available a preliminary draft regulatory basis for a proposed rulemaking that would amend the NRC's regulations concerning the license renewal requirements for non-power reactors. This contemplated rulemaking would also make conforming changes to address technical issues in existing non-power reactor regulations. The NRC is seeking input from the public, licensees, certificate holders, and other stakeholders on the preliminary draft regulatory basis.
Submit comments by July 31, 2012. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may access information and comment submissions related to this preliminary draft regulatory basis, 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
Duane Hardesty, Project Manager, Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop: O12-E20, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3724; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0087 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this preliminary draft regulatory basis. You may access information related to this preliminary draft regulatory basis, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0087 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
In response to Commission direction in a Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-08-0161 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML082550140 and ML090850159), the NRC has developed a preliminary draft regulatory basis for a proposed rulemaking regarding non-power reactor licenses. The preliminary draft regulatory basis document describes the NRC's overall objectives, conceptual approaches, potential solutions, integration with the NRC's strategic goals, and related technical and
The NRC is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the preliminary draft regulatory basis to streamline non-power reactor license renewal. After the NRC staff considers public comments, it will make a determination regarding issuance of the final regulatory basis. Any subsequent versions of the regulatory basis will be posted on
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Reopening of comment period.
This document announces a reopening of the comment period for 15 days in order to consider comments previously submitted after the close of the earlier comment period and to allow interested parties to submit comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies.
Comments must be submitted no later than July 16, 2012.
Any comments submitted must identify the subject matter (“Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies”) and provide the appropriate docket number (EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005) and/or RIN number (1904-AB57). Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email:
On March 27, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the
Recently, after the closing of the comment period, DOE has received comments on this rulemaking from interested parties. These comments submit additional information for DOE to consider as part of its evaluation of potential standards for battery chargers and EPSs. In order to consider comments previously submitted after the close of the earlier comment period and to allow interested parties to submit comments on the NOPR, DOE has determined that a re-opening of the comment period in this rulemaking is appropriate and is hereby doing so. DOE will consider any comments received between March 27, 2012 and July 16, 2012 to be timely submitted.
Under 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation-manufactured Model S-64F helicopters, now under the Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated (Erickson) Model S-64F type certificate. That AD currently requires inspections, rework, and replacement, if necessary, of the main gearbox (MGB) second stage lower planetary plate (plate). Since we issued that AD, the manufacturer has conducted a configuration review and analysis, and a review of the service history of certain components. The proposed actions are intended to establish life limits for certain components, remove various parts from service, and require consistency in the part numbers of certain four bladed tail rotor (T/R) assemblies to prevent fatigue cracking, failure from static overload, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 28, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson/Compliance Officer, 3100 Willow Springs Rd, P.O. Box 3247, Central Point, OR 97502, telephone (541) 664-5544, fax (541) 664-2312, email address
Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5170, email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
On May 9, 1997, we issued AD 97-10-15, Amendment 39-10028 (62 FR 28321, May 23, 1997), for the Sikorsky Aircraft-manufactured Model S-64F helicopters (now under the Erickson Model S-64F helicopter type certificate) with a plate, P/N 6435-20516-101, with 2,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS). That AD requires, before the first flight of each day, inspecting the MGB main oil filter for magnesium contamination, and if magnesium contamination is present, replacing the MGB assembly. That AD also requires inspecting the MGB assembly within 100 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS, and if necessary, replacing the MGB assembly. Finally, that AD requires, at the next overhaul of the MGB assembly, inspecting and reworking the plate. That action was prompted by two incidents in which the plate was found cracked. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent failure of the plate due to fatigue cracking, which could lead to failure of the MGB and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Since we issued AD 97-10-15, Erickson has performed additional analysis as a part of a configuration review and has also reviewed the service history of certain components. Erickson determined that certain life-limits and other maintenance requirements need to be revised, and released Erickson Service Bulletin (SB) No. 64F General-1, Revision 17, dated August 17, 2010 (SB No. 64F General-1, Rev. 17). We have reviewed this SB and have determined that the retirement lives of certain parts need to be revised. We have also determined that certain parts, including the plate, P/N 6435-20516-101, which is the subject of the existing AD, should be removed from service and should no longer be eligible for installation on these helicopters.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
SB No. 64F General-1, Rev. 17, contains the Airworthiness Limitations Schedule for the Model S-64F helicopter and lists the parts and assemblies with their specified retirement lives.
This AD proposes to reduce or establish the life limits for certain flight-critical components, remove other parts with service difficulties from service, and require that T/R blade assembly P/N 65160-00001-048 be installed only as a set of four and not be installed with another part-numbered blade. The requirements in current AD 97-10-15 would be superseded and the part-numbered planetary plate, which is the subject of that AD, would be removed from service. This proposed AD would require, before further flight, a change in the life-limit for the following components:
• Main Rotor (M/R) Blade Assembly, P/N 6415-20601-045;
• Main Transmission Support Beam Assembly, LH, P/N 6420-62363-045;
• Main Transmission Support Beam Assembly, RH, P/N 6420-62363-046;
• Left Splice Fitting (Transition Fitting), Rotary, Rudder Boom, P/N 6420-66341-101;
• Right Splice Fitting (Transition Fitting), Rotary, Rudder Boom, P/N 6420-66341 102;
• M/R Drive Shaft, P/N 6435-20536-101;
• Pressure Plate Assembly, Rotary Wing Head, P/N 65101-11016-042;
• Horn and Liner Assembly, P/N 65102-11047-041;
• Lower Hub Plate Assembly, P/N 65103-11009-041;
• Horizontal Hinge Pin, Rotary Wing Head, P/N 65103-11020-103;
• Damper Bracket Assembly, Rotary Wing Head, P/N 65103-11032-043;
• Hub Subassembly, Rotary Wing, P/N 65103-11310-043;
• Shaft Assembly, Pitch Control Tail Gearbox, P/N 65358-07035-043; and
• Rod End Assembly, Primary Servo Assembly, P/N 65652-11212-041.
In addition to proposing new or revised life limits for certain flight-critical components, this AD also proposes to remove the following components from service due to service difficulties:
• Spindle Assembly, Rotary Rudder, P/N 6410-30302-041;
• MGB Second Stage Lower Planetary Plate, P/N 6435-20516-101 or 6435-20516-102;
• Bracket Assembly, Main Servo, P/N 6435-20527-041 or 6435-20527-042;
• Primary Servo Link Assembly, Tandem Servo, M/R, P/N 6465-62161-042;
• Shoulder Bolt, T/R, P/N 65111-07001-102; and
• T/R Blade Assembly, P/N 65161-00001-041.
This proposed AD contains only a portion of the life-limited parts for this model helicopter, and is not an all-inclusive list.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 7 helicopters of U.S. Registry and estimate, at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, the following costs for removing from service the parts listed in Table 2 of this proposed AD action:
• Reviewing helicopter records to determine if an affected part is installed will require approximately 2 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $170 and a fleet cost of $1,190.
• Replacing the rotary rudder spindle assembly will require 10 work-hours and a parts cost of $2,787, for a cost per helicopter of $3,637 and a fleet cost of $25,459.
• Replacing the plate will require 40 work-hours and a parts cost of $43,750, for a cost per helicopter of $47,150 and a fleet cost of $330,050.
• Replacing the main servo bracket assembly will require 2 work-hours and a parts cost of $5,223, for a cost per helicopter of $5,393 and a fleet cost of $37,751.
• Replacing the primary servo link assembly of the M/R tandem servo will require 10 work-hours and a parts cost of $14,533, for a cost per helicopter of $15,383 and a fleet cost of $107,681.
• Replacing the T/R shoulder bolt will require 10 work-hours and a parts cost of $571, for a cost per helicopter of $1,421 and a fleet cost of $9,947.
• Replacing the T/R Blade Assembly will require 8 work-hours and a parts cost of $125,765 for a cost per helicopter of $126,445 and a fleet cost of $885,115.
• The total cost to replace the parts that are proposed to be removed from service is estimated to be $199,599 per helicopter and a fleet cost of $1,397,193.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-10028 (62 FR 28321, May 23, 1997), and adding the following new AD:
This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation-manufactured Model S-64F helicopters, now under the Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated Model S-64F type certificate, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a fatigue crack in a flight critical component. This condition could result in component failure from static overload and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD 97-10-15, Amendment 39-10028 (62 FR 28321, May 23, 1997).
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless accomplished previously.
(1) Before further flight:
(i) Remove from service any part with a number of hours time-in-service (TIS) equal to or greater than the part's retirement life as stated in following Table 1 of this AD.
The list of parts in Table 1 of this AD contains only a portion of the life-limited parts for this model helicopter and is not an all-inclusive list.
(ii) Revise the retirement life of each part as shown in Table 1 of this AD by making pen and ink changes or by inserting a copy of this AD into the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual.
(iii) Record on the component history card or equivalent record the retirement life for each part as shown in Table 1 of this AD.
(2) Before further flight, remove from service any part with a P/N listed in the following Table 2 of this AD, regardless of the part's TIS. The P/Ns listed in Table 2 of this AD are not eligible for installation on any helicopter.
(3) Before further flight, if a T/R blade assembly, P/N 65160-00001-048, is installed, remove any of the other three T/R blade assemblies that have a different P/N and replace it with a T/R blade assembly, P/N 65160-00001-048. The T/R blade assembly, P/N 65160-00001-048, must be installed in sets of four only.
(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Fort Worth, Texas, 76137, telephone (817) 222-5170, email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Erickson Service Bulletin No. 64F General-1, Revision 17, dated August 17, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson/Compliance Officer, 3100 Willow Springs Rd, PO Box 3247, Central Point, OR 97502, telephone (541) 664-5544, fax (541) 664-2312, email address
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300: Main Rotor Drive System and 6400: Tail Rotor System.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Department is proposing to amend its existing rule regarding the reporting of incidents involving animals during air transport, 14 CFR 234.13, to expand the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats, to expand the definition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs transported by the carrier, regardless of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment (e.g., shipped by a breeder), and to require all covered carriers to provide in their December reports the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport. We also seek comment on requiring carriers to report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year in the December reports.
Comments should be filed by August 28, 2012. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2010-0211 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Vinh Q. Nguyen, Trial Attorney, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax),
The current rule regarding reporting of incidents involving animals during air transport derives from the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or “AIR-21” (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed into law on April 5, 2000. It included section 710, “Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport,” and was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41721. Section 41721 contains the following provisions:
(a)
(d)
(e)
On August 11, 2003, DOT, through its Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), issued a final rule implementing section 710 of AIR-21.
Section 234.13 requires air carriers that provide scheduled passenger air transportation to submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation within 15 days of the end of the month during which the incident occurred. It defines “animal” as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States. The air transport of an animal covers the
On August 10, 2010, Senators Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, and Joseph Lieberman wrote to the Secretary of Transportation urging the Department to amend the rule so that airlines would be required to report all incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of cats and dogs that occur while they are traveling in an airline's care, custody, or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is being transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment. In addition to the letter, the Department received a petition for rulemaking on this matter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), an advocacy group which works to protect the lives and advance the interest of animals through the legal system. In its petition, ALDF requests that the Department's regulation requiring the reporting of loss, injury, or death of animals in air transport be revised to require airlines to report any such incident involving animals they carry. It contends that the data that are currently collected by the Department capture only incidents affecting pets, even though pets make up only part of the total number of animals transported by airlines. The ALDF's proposal would apply to all species of animals, not just cats and dogs.
This NPRM proposes to expand the applicability of the rule to require all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 passenger seats to submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation within 15 days after the end of the month during which the incident occurred. Under the current rule, most of the reports on incidents involving animals during air transport have been submitted by “reporting carriers,” as defined in 14 CFR 234.2. At the present time, there are 15 “reporting carriers.” These airlines account for the vast majority of domestic traffic. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to expand the requirement to all carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats to provide consumers and other interested parties a more complete picture of the treatment of animals on scheduled passenger flights. By expanding the applicability from the reporting carriers (i.e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue) to U.S. carriers that operate domestic or international scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft with more than 60 seats, we would be requiring reports of loss, injury or death of an animal from 36 carriers instead of only 15 carriers. These 36 carriers carry about 99.6 percent of domestic passengers and 98 percent of international passengers that travel on U.S. airlines.
Consistent with section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), we are not proposing to expand this rule to carriers that operate scheduled service with only aircraft that have a design capacity of 60 seats or less as these carriers are considered small businesses.
The existing rule defines an animal as a pet in a family household. The NPRM proposes to expand this definition to include cats and dogs that are part of a commercial shipment. More specifically, the NPRM proposes to retain that portion of the definition of “animal” that refers to any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States and add to this definition “and any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight.”
We are proposing this expansion in the definition of an animal because dogs and cats that are being shipped on scheduled passenger flights other than as pets by their owners are likely being transported for the purpose of being sold as a pet in a family household in the United States. Moreover, based on the data we collected of loss, injury or death of household pets transported in commercial aviation from May 2005 to November 2011, we found that virtually all of the reports of deaths (95%), injuries (100%), and loss (98%) involved cats and dogs. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether the definition of an animal should be expanded further to include not only dogs and cats in commercial shipments but all species of animals in commercial air transportation. We are seeking comment, rather than proposing specific language, on expanding the definition of an animal to apply to all species of animals, as suggested by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. We are not proposing language at this time for two reasons. First, the overwhelming majority of losses, injuries, and deaths of household pets reported to DOT by airlines have involved cats and dogs. Second, the legislative history of AIR-21 does not appear to show an intent to require reporting of incidents involving commercial shipment of animals such as fish and birds that are being shipped from breeders/wholesalers to retailers. The rule would continue not to cover animals that accompany a passenger at his or her seat in the cabin as the air carrier does not take custody of such animals. In any event, the likelihood of the loss, injury, or death of such animals is very minimal.
We further propose in this NPRM to require each covered carrier to provide in its December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths and the total number of
We ask commenters to provide the following information to assist our consideration of the question of requiring carriers to report the total number of animals transported. How many cats, dogs and other household pets are currently transported per year on scheduled flights of U.S. air carriers? Has this number been increasing or decreasing in recent years? Are current procedures for tracking animal incidents adequate for tracking the total number of animals transported? If yes, then what additional annual costs would be involved for tracking the total number of animals transported? If not, what new procedures would need to be put in place? What exactly would be involved? In terms of costs: What are the set-up costs for such a system? What are annual costs of running it? Are the annual costs fixed or do they depend on the number of animals transported? Please describe capital costs, labor hours, and other costs separately.
In order to limit the burden on the covered carriers, we seek comment on whether we should require covered carriers to report only once per year in the December reports on the total number of animals transported during the previous year, or whether the total number of animals transported should be reported each month. We also solicit comment on whether carriers should be required to file negative reports even if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during a particular month or year —i.e., reporting “0” for any reporting category where there were no such incidents. Negative reports would require carriers to affirmatively certify that there were no reportable animal incidents during that period; they are an additional incentive to ensure that the reports are complete and accurate. We also invite interested persons to comment on whether the Department should continue not requiring carriers to file negative monthly reports of animal incidents (i.e., not requiring reports stating there were no incidents of death, loss, or injury of an animal).
The Department is seeking comment on these issues. Our final action will be based on the comments and supporting evidence filed in this docket and on our own analysis.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This action has been determined not to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The costs associated with this rule would be minimal.
The cost of filing monthly reports would be minimal. Aside from the December report, a carrier would be required to report only during the months where the carrier experiences a reportable animal incident. Currently, 15 of the 36 carriers that would be affected are already required to collect information on incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal. For these 15 carriers, who account for approximately 90 percent of the domestic market, there would be no additional costs. For the 21 other carriers who do not currently have to report, the cost would vary depending on whether or not there is a reportable incident during any given month. For example, if a carrier experiences no reportable incidents all year, then the recurrent cost of filing monthly reports for January to November is $0. However, if the carrier experiences a reportable incident every month of the year, the cost would be $401.52. This is based on our estimate that it would take a Paralegal working in scheduled air transportation making $33.46 (the average wage rate plus benefits) one hour to prepare and submit one monthly report. So, if all 21 carriers, who do not currently have to report, each experience a reportable incident every month of the year, the total cost would be $8,431.92. Therefore, the cost of monthly reports would be between $0 and $8,431.92 per year depending on the number of reportable incidents. Even the high estimate would still be a minimal cost.
All covered carriers would be required to submit a December report. However, the burden on covered carriers to submit a December report that includes the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport would be minimal. This report would merely be an arithmetic total of the values in any report that a covered carrier filed throughout the year.
The cost of the proposed expanded definition of an animal would impact airlines, but the cost would still be minimal. Since 2006, the average number of reported incidents per year is 46. If we were to assume that it takes a Paralegal one hour to prepare and submit a report per incident, then we have estimated that the cost to the industry is $1540 per year. This is based on our estimate of a Paralegal's salary discussed above. Various trade sources indicate that dogs and cats transported as part of a commercial shipment may account for as much as half of all dogs, cats, and other household pets that are transported by covered carriers. If we were to assume that expanding the definition to include dogs and cats transported as part of a commercial shipment would result in an additional 46 reported incidents per year (i.e., a total of 92 incidents), the additional cost of $1540 is still minimal.
The benefits of the rule, while difficult to quantify, exceed the costs. Good data are not immediately available as to the total number of animals that air carriers currently transport. Neither trade associations for animal transportation providers nor airlines collect data on the number of animals transported annually by air. Trade association (e.g., pet transportation
A copy of the preliminary regulatory evaluation has been placed in the docket. We invite comment on the quantification of costs and benefits for this proposed requirement, as well as the methodology used to develop our cost and benefit estimates. We also seek comment on how unquantified costs and benefits could be measured.
Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), I certify that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would impose no new duties or obligations on small entities. As discussed above, consistent with the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA, we are not proposing to expand this rule to carriers that operate scheduled service with only aircraft that have a design capacity of 60 seats or less as these carriers are considered small businesses.
This action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore will not have federalism implications.
This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because the provision on which we are seeking comment would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Department is seeking to renew with change the information collection titled “Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport” (OMB No. 2105-055). This information collection expired on June 6, 2011. This NPRM proposes to modify the information collection requirement. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
The collection of information proposed in the NPRM is a requirement that U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more than 60 passenger seats report to the Department's ACPD any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death during air transport of cats and dogs that were part of a commercial shipment. (Cats and dogs that were being kept as a household pet at the time of such a loss, injury, or death are already required to be reported by these airlines.) As discussed above, this requirement would expand the reporting requirement from 15 carriers to 36 carriers, an increase of 21 carriers. We also propose to require covered carriers to state in their report for the month of December the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport. We solicit comment on whether we should also require carriers to provide information about the total number of animals transported in the calendar year.
The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.
Air carrier, Animal incidents, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Transportation proposes to amend 14 CFR chapter II as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 329 and Sections 41708 and 41709.
2. Section 234.13 is removed.
3. A new part 235 is added to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 41721.
For the purposes of this part:
This part applies to the scheduled domestic and international passenger service of any U.S. air carrier that operates such service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more than 60 passenger seats.
(a) Each covered carrier shall, within 15 days after the end of the month to which the information applies, submit to the United States Department of Transportation's Aviation Consumer Protection Division a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport provided by the air carrier, including incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall be made in the form and manner set forth in reporting directives issued by the Deputy General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation and shall contain the following information:
(1) Carrier and flight number;
(2) Date and time of the incident;
(3) Description of the animal, including name, if applicable;
(4) Name and contact information of the owner(s), guardian and/or shipper of the animal;
(5) Narrative description of the incident;
(6) Narrative description of the cause of the incident;
(7) Narrative description of any corrective action taken in response to the incident; and
(8) Name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual filing the report on behalf of the air carrier.
(b) Within 15 days after the end of December of each year, each covered carrier shall submit the following information (this information may be included in any report that the carrier may file for the loss, injury, or death of animals during the month of December):
(1) The total number of incidents involving an animal during air transport provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar year, including incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall include subtotals for loss, injury, and death of animals. Report “0” for any category for which there were no such incidents. If the carrier had no reportable incidents for that calendar year, it shall report “0” in each category.
(2) The December report must contain the following certification signed by your authorized representative: “I, the undersigned, do certify that this report has been prepared under my direction in accordance with the regulations in 14 CFR Part 235. I affirm that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this is a true, correct and complete report.”
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Proposed Statement of Policy on Animal Testing
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) proposes to codify its statement of policy on animal testing, as amended, which was previously published in the
Written comments and submissions in response to this notice must be received by September 12, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0037, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email) except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Leslie E. Patton, Ph.D., Project Manager, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7848;
The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278, requires appropriate cautionary labeling on certain hazardous household products to alert consumers to the potential hazards that a product may present. Among the hazards addressed by the FHSA are products that are toxic, corrosive, irritants, flammable, combustible, or strong sensitizers. The FHSA and the Commission regulations at 16 CFR part 1500 provide certain test methods related to testing on animals to determine the existence of the hazards addressed by the FHSA.
On May 30, 1984, the Commission adopted an animal testing policy that minimized the number of test animals required for toxicity testing and clarified when animal testing might be needed (1984 Policy) published in the
Since the 1984 Policy, there have been new methods accepted by the scientific community as replacements or adjuncts to animal tests for predictions of toxicity and irritancy. Such developments in testing have been made in recent years, particularly since the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act was passed in 1993 (Pub. L. 103-43, Section 1301), directing the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to establish a method and criteria for the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods. The NIEHS created the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM;
ICCVAM submits recommendations for a test method to federal agencies that require or recommend acute or chronic toxicological testing. According to Public Law 106-545, these agencies should promote and encourage the development and use of alternatives to animal test methods for regulatory purposes, and ensure that any new or revised acute or chronic toxicity test method is valid for its proposed use. Federal agencies have 180 days from the time of submission to identify any relevant test methods for which the ICCVAM test recommendations may be added or substituted, review such test recommendations, and notify ICCVAM if they will adopt the ICCVAM test recommendations. Since 2003, the Commission has approved, where applicable, the recommendations made by ICCVAM to reduce and refine animal testing applicable to test methods under the FHSA. In order to make the ICCVAM recommendations and Commission's animal testing policy more accessible and transparent to interested parties, the Commission proposes to update its regulations on animal testing at 16 C.F.R. part 1500, published elsewhere in this
In addition, the Commission proposes to update its statement on animal testing policy to reflect the ICCVAM recommendations that have been reviewed and adopted by the CPSC as being appropriate tests for assessing hazards under the FHSA. In order to make this statement of policy more accessible and transparent to interested parties, the Commission proposes to codify the policy at 16 CFR 1500.232.
Since this is a statement of policy, a delayed effective date is not required. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2). A delayed effective date is not required for the additional reason that this policy is not a substantive rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Accordingly, this codification will become effective upon the publication of a final policy statement in the
Consumer protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Toys.
For the reasons given above, the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1500 as follows:
1. The authority for part 1500 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1261-1278, 122 Stat. 3016; the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-314, § 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
2. Add a new section 1500.232 to read as follows:
(1) The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issues this statement of policy on animal testing and alternatives to animal testing of hazardous substances regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The FHSA requires appropriate cautionary labeling on certain household products to alert consumers to the potential hazard(s) that the products may present. Among the hazards addressed by the FHSA are toxicity, corrosivity, sensitization, and irritation.
(2) In order to determine the appropriate cautionary labeling, it is necessary to have objective criteria by which the existence of each hazard can be determined. Hazards such as toxicity, tissue corrosiveness, eye irritancy, and skin irritancy result from the biological response of living tissue and organs to the presence of the hazardous substance. One means of characterizing these hazards is to use animal testing as a proxy for the human reaction. In fact, the FHSA defines the hazard category of “
(3) Neither the FHSA nor the Commission's regulations
(4) In making the appropriate hazard determinations, manufacturers of products subject to the FHSA should use existing alternatives to animal testing whenever possible. These include prior human experience, literature sources that record the results of prior animal testing or limited human tests, and expert opinion. The Commission recommends resorting to animal testing only when the other information sources have been exhausted. At this time, the Commission recommends use of the most humane procedures with the fewest animals possible to achieve reliable results. Recommended procedures are summarized in the following statement and can be accessed on the Commission's Web page at:
(1) The Commission reviews staff recommendations on alternative test methods developed by the scientific and regulatory communities. Current descriptions of test method recommendations approved by the Commission can be accessed via the Internet at:
(i)
(ii) Valid
(iii) A sequential version of the traditional LD
(iv) A limit-dose test, where the LD
(i) In a tiered
(ii) If a tiered test is not feasible, the Commission recommends the test method described in § 1500.41. Note that in any
(i) When the weight-of-evidence is insufficient to determine a substance's ocular irritation, a Commission-approved
(ii) If the dermal test strategy outlined in section (b)(ii) leads to a conclusion of
(iii) When any ocular irritancy testing on animals is considered necessary, including the method described in § 1500.42, the Commission recommends a threefold plan to reduce animal suffering: (1) The use of preemptive pain management, including topical anesthetics and systemic analgesics that eliminate or reduce suffering that may occur as a result of the application process or from the test substance itself; (2) post-treatment with systemic analgesics for pain relief; and (3) implementation of humane endpoints, including scheduled observations,
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) proposes to amend and to update regulations on the CPSC's animal testing methods under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).
Written comments must be received by September 12, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0036, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email) except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Leslie E. Patton, Ph.D., Project Manager, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7848;
The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278, requires appropriate cautionary labeling on certain hazardous household products to alert consumers to the potential hazards that a product may present. Among the hazards addressed by the FHSA are products that are toxic, corrosive, irritants, flammable, combustible, or strong sensitizers. The FHSA and the Commission regulations at 16 CFR part 1500 provide certain test methods related to testing on animals to determine the existence of the hazards addressed by the FHSA.
On May 30, 1984, the Commission adopted an animal testing policy that minimized the number of test animals required for toxicity testing and clarified when animal testing might be needed (1984 Policy) (49 FR 22522). These guidelines advised product manufacturers to use alternatives to animal testing whenever possible, including: (1) Prior human experience, (2) existing animal or limited human test results, and (3) expert opinion. The 1984 Policy stated:
It is important to keep in mind that neither the FHSA nor the Commission's regulations require any firm to perform animal tests. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product. While animal testing may be necessary in some cases, Commission policy supports limiting such tests to the lowest feasible number and taking every feasible step to eliminate or reduce the pain or discomfort that can be associated with such tests. * * * The Commission resorts to animal testing only when the other information sources have been exhausted. Furthermore, the FHSA regulations, at 16 CFR 1500.4, clearly state that reliable human experience shall take precedence over different results from animal data.
Since the 1984 Policy, there have been new methods accepted by the scientific community as replacements or adjuncts to animal tests for predictions of toxicity and irritancy. Such developments in testing have been made in recent years, particularly since the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act was passed in 1993 (Pub. L. 103-43, Section 1301), directing the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to establish a method and criteria for the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods. The NIEHS created the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM;
ICCVAM submits recommendations for a test method to federal agencies that require or recommend acute or chronic toxicological testing. According to Public Law 106-545, these agencies should promote and encourage the development and use of alternatives to animal test methods for regulatory purposes, and ensure that any new or revised acute or chronic toxicity test method is valid for its proposed use. Federal agencies have 180 days from the
In addition, to reflect more accurately the ICCVAM recommendations and updated test methods approved by the Commission, this proposed rule amends the Commission's regulations that interpret, supplement, or provide alternatives to definitions on animal test methods used to aid in the classification of hazardous substances under the FHSA.
All of the proposed amendments to 16 CFR part 1500 clarify or add language to explain that alternative test methods exist that avoid or reduce animal testing, which have been approved by the Commission.
Currently, the test methods in section 1500.3(c)(1)(ii) A-C, used in the definitions of oral, inhalation, and dermal toxicity, respectively, each describe a method for defining a substance as
(i) A substance determined by the Commission to be highly toxic on the basis of human experience; and/or (ii) A substance that produces death within 14 days in half or more than half of a group of: (A) White rats (each weighing between 200 and 300 grams) when a single dose of 50 milligrams or less per kilogram of body weight is administered orally; (B) White rats (each weighing between 200 and 300 grams) when a concentration of 200 parts per million by volume or less of gas or vapor, or 2 milligrams per liter by volume or less of mist or dust, is inhaled continuously for 1 hour or less, if such concentration is likely to be encountered by man when the substance is used in any reasonably foreseeable manner; and/or (C) Rabbits (each weighing between 2.3 and 3.0 kilograms) when a dosage of 200 milligrams or less per kilogram of body weight is administered by continuous contact with the bare skin for 24 hours or less by the method described in § 1500.40. The number of animals tested must be sufficient to give a statistically significant result and shall be in conformity with good pharmacological practices.
The proposed amendment makes clear that the animal tests are not the only means to test or define a product's toxicity under the FHSA, nor are they the only methods used by the CPSC to assess product toxicity. Because there are other Commission-approved test methods that may be used by CPSC staff or the public for toxicity testing and defining a substance as highly toxic, as reflected in the ICCVAM recommendations and outlined in the CPSC'statement of policy on animal testing published elsewhere in this
Currently, the test methods in section 1500.3(c)(2)(i) A-C, used in the definitions of oral, inhalation, and dermal toxicity, respectively, each describe a method for defining a substance as
(i) Any substance that produces death within 14 days in half or more than half of a group of: (A) White rats (each weighing between 200 and 300 grams) when a single dose of 50 milligrams to 5 grams per kilogram of body weight is administered orally. Substances falling in the toxicity range between 500 milligrams and 5 grams per kilogram of body weight will be considered for exemption from some or all of the labeling requirements of the act, under § 1500.82, upon a showing that such labeling is not needed because of the physical form of the substances (solid, a thick plastic, emulsion, etc.), the size or closure of the container, human experience with the article, or any other relevant factors; and/or (B) White rats (each weighing between 200 and 300 grams) when a concentration of more than 200 parts per million but not more than 20,000 parts per million by volume of gas or vapor, or more than 2 but not more than 200 milligrams per liter by volume of mist or dust, is inhaled continuously for 1 hour or less, if such concentration is likely to be encountered by man when the substance is used in any reasonably foreseeable manner; and/or (C) Rabbits (each weighing between 2.3 and 3.0 kilograms) when a dosage of more than 200 milligrams but not more than 2 grams per kilogram of body weight is administered by continuous contact with the bare skin for 24 hours by the method described in § 1500.40. The number of animals tested must be sufficient to give a statistically significant result and shall be in conformity with good pharmacological practices.
The proposed amendment makes clear that the animal tests are not the only means to test or define a product's toxicity under the FHSA, nor are they the only methods used by the CPSC to assess product toxicity. Because there are other Commission-approved test methods that may be used by CPSC staff or the public for toxicity testing and defining a substance as
16 CFR 1500.3(c)(3) currently states that: Corrosive means a substance that causes visible destruction or irreversible alterations in the tissue at the site of contact. A test for a corrosive substance is whether, by human experience, such tissue destruction occurs at the site of application. A substance would be considered corrosive to the skin if, when tested on the intact skin of the albino rabbit by the technique described in § 1500.41, the structure of the tissue at the site of contact is destroyed or changed irreversibly in 24 hours or less. Other appropriate tests should be applied when contact of the substance with other than skin tissue is being considered.
The method of testing described in § 1500.41 is a test for acute dermal toxicity. The proposed rule amends this definition to make explicit that the animal testing is not the only testing method used or accepted by the CPSC, or the preferred method. Accordingly, the proposed rule adds the following text (in underline) to section 16 CFR 1500.3(c)(3):
Corrosive means a substance that causes visible destruction or irreversible alterations in the tissue at the site of contact. A test for a corrosive substance is whether, by human experience, such tissue destruction occurs at the site of application. A substance would be considered corrosive to the skin
Currently, 16 CFR 1500.3(c)(4) provides that the test methods for
The proposed rule clarifies that the method for testing for irritant substances should not be based solely on these specific animal tests because there are other scientifically valid ways of testing for irritants, including methods that do not use animals. Accordingly, the proposed rule adds the following text (in underline) to section 1500.3(c)(4):
The definition of irritant in section 2(j) of the act (restated in paragraph (b)(8) of this section) is supplemented by the following:
The method of testing toxic substances is set forth under 16 CFR 1500.40. This method details an acute dermal toxicity assay using rabbits. The method is referenced in § 1500.3(c)(1)(ii)(C) and § 1500.3(c)(2)(C). Although the method described in § 1500.40 is one way of assessing a substance's acute dermal toxicity, this method is not mandatory, and it is not the only or preferred method for evaluating dermal toxicity. Accordingly, the proposed rule adds the following text (in underline) to § 1500.40 immediately after the heading titled, “Method of testing toxic substances”:
The method of testing primary irritant substances is set forth under 16 CFR 1500.41. This method details an acute dermal toxicity assay using rabbits. The method is referenced in §§ 1500.3(c)(3) and 1500.3(c)(4). Although the method described in § 1500.41 is one way of assessing a substance's dermal irritation/corrosivity, this method is not mandatory, and it is not the only or preferred method for evaluating a substance's dermal irritation/corrosivity. Accordingly, the proposed rule adds the following text (in underline) to § 1500.41 immediately after the heading titled, “Method of testing primary irritant substances”:
Section 1500.42 of 16 CFR provides a detailed animal test for eye irritation. The method is referenced in § 1500.3(c)(4), which defines
(a)(1)
The proposed rule eliminates the reference in § 1500.42(c) to the “Illustrated Guide for Grading Eye Irritation by Hazardous Substances,” and the accompanying note. The referenced guide is out of print, and photocopies are rare. Instead, the proposed rule amends § 1500.42(c) to reference guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as follows:
To assist testing laboratories and others interested in interpreting ocular irritation test results, the CPSC animal testing policy Web page at
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), when an agency issues a proposed rule, it generally must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact the proposed rule is expected to have on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis if the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission's Directorate for Economic Analysis prepared a preliminary assessment of the impact of amending the regulations on animal testing. That assessment found that there would be little or no effect on small businesses and other entities because the proposed amendments will not result in product modifications in order to comply, and they will not result in additional testing or recordkeeping burdens. Based on the foregoing assessment, the Commission preliminarily finds that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Generally, CPSC rules are considered to “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” and environmental assessments and environmental impact statements are not usually prepared for these rules (see 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1)). The Commission does not expect the proposed rule to have any adverse impact on the environment under this categorical exclusion.
According to Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), agencies must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. The preemptive effect of regulations such as this proposed rule is stated in section 18 of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261n.
This rule would not impose any information collection requirements. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires that a substantive rule be published not less than 30 days before its effective date, unless the agency finds, for good cause shown, that a lesser time period is required. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). We propose that the rule would take effect 30 days after publication of a final rule in the
Consumer protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Toys.
Accordingly, 16 CFR part 1500 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1500 continues to reads as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1261-1278, 122 Stat. 3016; the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-314, § 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
2. Amend section 1500.3 by adding new paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(2)(iii) and revise paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4), to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) A substance that produces a result of `highly toxic' in any of the approved test methods described in the CPSC's animal testing policy set forth in 16 CFR 1500.232.
(2) * * *
(iii)
(3) Corrosive means a substance that causes visible destruction or irreversible alterations in the tissue at the site of contact. A test for a corrosive substance is whether, by human experience, such tissue destruction occurs at the site of application. A substance would be considered corrosive to the skin if a weight-of-evidence analysis suggests that it is corrosive or if, when tested by the
(4) The definition of irritant in section 2(j) of the act (restated in paragraph (b)(8) of this section) is supplemented by the following:
3. Amend section 1500.40 by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
Guidelines for testing the toxicity of substances, including testing that does not require animals, are presented in the CPSC's animal testing policy set forth in 16 CFR 1500.232. A weight-of-evidence analysis is recommended to evaluate existing information before
4. In § 1500.41, add five sentences at the start of the introductory text to read as follows:
Guidelines for testing the dermal irritation and corrosivity properties of substances, including testing that does not require animals, are presented in the CPSC's animal testing policy set forth in 16 CFR 1500.232. A weight-of-evidence analysis is recommended to evaluate existing information before
5. Amend section 1500.42 by adding introductory text, adding a sentence at the beginning of paragraph (a)(1), and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Guidelines for
(a)(1) In the method of testing the ocular irritation of a substance referred to in § 1500.3(c)(4), six albino rabbits are used for each test substance * * *
(c) To assist testing laboratories and others interested in interpreting ocular irritation test results, the CPSC animal testing policy Web page at
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is extending the comment period for Notice No. 127, Proposed Amendment to the Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits, for an additional 10 days. In Notice No. 127, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
Written comments on Notice No. 127 are now due on or before July 9, 2012.
You may send comments on Notice No. 127 to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.
You may view copies of all rulemaking documents, supporting materials, and any comments related to this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2012-0002 at
Christopher M. Thiemann, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200E, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202-453-1039, ext. 138.
In Notice No. 127, published in the
The 60-day comment period for Notice No. 127 originally was set to close on June 29, 2012. On June 15, 2012, TTB received a comment from the European Union requesting an extension of the comment period “in order to have time to analyze and prepare comments” on the proposal (see Comment 4 within Docket No. TTB-2012-0002). In response to this request, TTB is extending the comment period for an additional 10 days, and, therefore, comments on Notice No. 127 are now due on or before July 9, 2012.
Michael D. Hoover of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice.
In proposed rule document 2012-15538, appearing on pages 38022-38024, in the issue of Tuesday, June 26, 2012, make the following correction:
1. On page 38023, column three, § 381.8 is being reprinted in its entirety for corrections to (b)(1)(i) and (ii).
(b)
(i) For such uses in a PBS-distributed program:
(ii) For such uses in other than PBS-distributed programs:
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is proposing to revise the
Submit comments on or before July 30, 2012.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC, by appointment only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Call 1-202-268-2906 in advance for an appointment. Email comments, containing the name and address of the commenter, may be sent to:
Craig Vance at 202-268-7595, or Kevin Gunther at 202-268-7208.
Prior to January 22, 2012, mailers were required to prepare bundles of flat-size Periodicals in mixed area distribution center (ADC) sacks (or similar containers), labeled according to labeling list L009; and in origin mixed ADC (OMX) sacks (or similar containers), labeled according to labeling list L201. These standards assured that the OMX and the mixed ADC separations were always made, and the sacks that were prepared could then be presented directly for acceptance or placed on pallets in accordance with DMM 705.8.10.2.
The separation of mail destinating within the “OMX” surface reach of the mailer's plant (or entry point) from the remaining mixed ADC mail is crucial for maintaining acceptable service performance, for the benefit of both Periodicals customers and USPS® processing operations.
On January 22, 2012, the Postal Service revised DMM 705.8.10.2 to allow mailers to place bundles of flat-size Periodicals directly onto mixed area distribution center (ADC) and origin mixed ADC (OMX) pallets, but retained the existing language describing these pallet levels as optional. The long-standing language that required the mixed ADC pallet to be labeled in accordance with labeling list L004 was also retained. As a result of this change, some mailers have discontinued the practice of making the mixed ADC and OMX separations when placing bundles of flat-size Periodicals directly on pallets.
It was not the intent of the January 22, 2012 revision to eliminate the requirement to perform the OMX and mixed ADC separations. The Postal Service therefore proposes to revise DMM 705.8.10.2 to provide the option for mailers to prepare both the OMX and mixed ADC pallet at no minimum volume threshold. The Postal Service proposes to require the preparation of both pallets at volumes of 100 pounds or more, and require sacking of these separations if the mailer elects not to form either pallet level below the 100-pound threshold. The Postal Service also proposes that the mixed ADC pallet will be prepared in accordance with labeling list L009 instead of L004, as is currently required. If these new standards are adopted, they will be effective January 28, 2013.
Although these changes are intended to be effective January 28, 2013, to provide for the most expeditious processing of their mixed ADC and OMX Periodicals mailpieces in USPS® networks, mailers are strongly encouraged to begin using these new standards immediately.
Although the Postal Service is exempted by 39 U.S.C. 410(a) from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C 553(b), (c)), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
2. Revise the following sections of
j.
k.
1. Line 1: “MXD” followed by the city, state, and ZIP Code information for facility serving 3-digit ZIP Code prefix of entry Post Office as shown in L009, Column A.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if the proposal is adopted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; correction.
In the Proposed Rules section of today's
Questions concerning the “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter” proposed rule should be addressed to Ms. Beth Hassett-Sipple, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, (C504-06), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-4605, email
In today's
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
In this action we are proposing to approve into the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) the addition of a new rule that sets volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions limits and other restrictions on consumer products that are sold, supplied, manufactured, or offered for sale in the State.
Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-1050, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposal rule; dismissal.
The Audio Division dismisses the petition for rulemaking filed by Alatron Corporation, Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 228A at Pike Road, Alabama, as the community's second local service, and the associated new FM application, File No. 20110504ACT. No comments or counterproposals were received by any parties. Petitioner did not file comments expressing a continuing interest in the proposed Pike Road allotment. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making an allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. We will not allot Channel 228A at Pike Road, Alabama.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of seven animal and plant species. We conduct these reviews to ensure that our classification of each species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as threatened or endangered is accurate. A 5-year review assesses the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. We are requesting the public to send us any information that has become available since the most recent status reviews on each of these species. Based on review results, we will determine whether we should change the listing status of any of these species.
To ensure consideration, please send your written information by August 28, 2012. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
For how and where to send comments or information, see “VIII. Contacts” under
To request information, see “VIII. Contacts” under
Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
In classifying, we use the following definitions, from 50 CFR 424.02:
(A)
(B)
(C)
We must support delisting by the best scientific and commercial data available, and only consider delisting if data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons (50 CFR 424.11(d)):
(A) The species is considered extinct;
(B) The species is considered to be recovered; or
(C) The original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of data, were in error.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
This notice announces our active 5-year status reviews of the species in the following table.
We consider all new information available at the time we conduct a 5-year review. We consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since our current listing determination, or most recent status review that is accessible from our Web site
(A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
(B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(D) Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened?”); and
(E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
For each species under review, if we find new information that indicates a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose a new rule that could do one of the following:
(A) Reclassify the species from threatened to endangered (uplist);
(B) Reclassify the species from endangered to threatened (downlist); or
(C) Remove the species from the List (delist).
If we determine that a change in classification is not warranted, then the species remains on the List under its current status.
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
Submit your comments and materials to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office listed under “VIII. Contacts.”
Submit all electronic information in Text or Rich Text format to
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.
Send your comments and information on the following species, as well as requests for information, to the corresponding contacts. You may view information we receive in response to this notice, as well as other documentation in our files, at the following locations by appointment, during normal business hours.
We publish this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to revise a currently approved information collection entitled, “Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Grant Application.” NIFA also intends to rename the information collection, “NIFA Grant Application.”
Written comments on this notice must be received by August 28, 2012 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments concerning this notice and requests for copies of the information collection may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
Gidel Mendez; Email:
The nature of the competitive, peer-reviewed process makes it important that information from applicants be available in a standardized format to ensure equitable treatment. Each year, request for applications are issued for various research, education, and extension areas targeted for support. Applicants submit applications for these targeted areas following formats outlined in the application guidelines accompanying each program's solicitation. These applications are evaluated by peer review panels, undergo other merit review processes, and are subsequently awarded. The forms and narrative information are mainly used for application evaluation and administration purposes. While some of the information is used to respond to inquiries from Congress and other government agencies, the forms are not designed to be statistical surveys.
NIFA requires submission of grant applications electronically through Grants.gov. The application processes through Grants.gov leverages several standard forms from the research and related form family. In addition to Grants.gov's standard forms, NIFA must collect some additional information for the proper evaluation and processing of applications. NIFA is also proposing some minor revisions to select forms as noted in each description. These forms include:
The individual form burden is as follows (calculated based on a survey of grant applicants conducted by NIFA):
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments also will become a matter of public record.
International Trade Administration.
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 (PRA) of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Suzan Winters—Phone: (202) 482-6042,
The International Trade Administration's U.S. Commercial Service (CS) is seeking approval to revise this information collection by combining with other collections, OMB control numbers: 0625-0065, 0625-0130, 0625-0143, 0625-0151, 0625-0215, 0625-0220, 0625-0228, and 0625-0238. These collections include all client intake, events/activities and export success forms. This comprehensive information collection will cover all aspects of an international organization's life-cycle with CS.
CS is mandated by Congress to help U.S. organizations, particularly but not limited to small and medium-sized organizations, export their products and services to global markets. As part of its mission, the CS provides market entry/expansion services and trade events to U.S. organizations. The International Client Life-cycle Multi-Purpose Forms, previously titled Export Assistance Center Internet Web Site Forms, are needed to collect information to enable U.S. organizations to efficiently and effectively enhance their ability to determine which international organizations are most suited for their exporting expansion efforts.
The key to effectively and efficiently assisting U.S. organizations export is identifying and verifying potential international buyers of U.S. goods and services.
1. Create an all inclusive and flexible client life-cycle information collection. The proposed categories of questions are: Contact information, organization information, organization type, agreements and confirmations, objectives, products and services, exporting experience, marketing, events and activities, trade fair/show, certified trade missions, trade missions, advocacy, environment, and education. CS asks only those questions that provide the required information to assist CS in fulfilling a client's objective for a requested service and/or event/activity.
2. Provide CS with the flexibility to create forms from the above approved categories and their questions. Client benefits include customizing questions, forms, and services to address their specific needs and objectives. Without this flexibility, CS is impeded from collecting pertinent client information in an effective and efficient manner.
Therefore, with increased flexibility, and the ability to immediately ascertain key information, U.S. organizations are productively positioned to achieve their exporting and expansion goals.
3. Reduce client burden through forms' flexibility and technology. CS seeks increased forms flexibility to ensure that CS asks and captures only the specific information needed for a particular event, thereby continuing to reduce client burdens as CS utilizes pre-populated information for clients who have previously registered with CS. As CS moves forward, we understand the importance and need for strategic planning and integration of future technology and initiatives that relate to CS programs and metrics with the types of information collected from clients to conduct those programs.
Additionally, the most important positive impact is the ability to quickly change and ask pertinent questions to assist clients with their exporting needs regarding matchmaking services, organization promotions, trade missions, market research and other trade promotional activities.
The information will be collected through Export.gov or sent via email and then completed by client electronically.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
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.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings completed between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. In conjunction with this list, the Department is also publishing a list of requests for scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations pending as of December 31, 2011. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Julia Hancock, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Group, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1394.
The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
Requestor: Sapa Extrusions; shower door kits containing at the time of importation all of the parts necessary to assemble a complete shower door, including glass panels, without further fabrication are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; November 7, 2011.
Requestor: Tri Vantage; retractable awning mechanisms that, at the time of importation do not contain the fabric awning, are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; October 14, 2011.
Requestor: Skyline Displays Inc.; banner stands and back wall kits containing at the time of importation all of the parts necessary to assemble a complete banner stand or back wall, without further fabrication, are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; October 19, 2011.
Requestor: Rubbermaid; cleaning system product lines (frames, handles, and mop handles) composed of aluminum extrusions that do not, at the time of importation, contain all of the parts necessary to comprise a final finished product, are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; October 25, 2011.
Requestor: Rubbermaid; non-extruded aluminum decorative waste containers are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; October 28, 2011.
Requestor: Peak Products America Inc.; certain modular aluminum railing system components are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; October 31, 2011.
Requestor: Moss Holding Company; its EZ fabric wall display systems are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; November 9, 2011.
Requestor: American Fence Manufacturing; aluminum fence sections, posts and gates are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; December 6, 2011.
Requestor: IAP Enclosure Systems LLC; window kits containing at the time of importation all of the parts necessary to assemble a complete window, including the glass, without further fabrication are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; December 6, 2011.
Requestor: Origin Point Brands; certain fence posts, panels, and gates are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; December 13, 2011.
Requestor: Ameristar Fence Products; certain aluminum individual fence parts (
Requestor: US Magnesium LLC; granular magnesium ground in a third-country, such as Mexico for this inquiry, from pure magnesium ingots produced in the People's Republic of China is
Requestor: ESM Group Inc.; its United States-origin pure magnesium ingots exported to the People's Republic of China for atomization and re-exported to the United States are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; October 28, 2011.
Requestor: Robert H. Ham Associates Ltd.; its retail display hangers are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order; December 1, 2011.
Requestor: University Loft Company; twin-sized Metropolitan (item number 50211SKD) and full-sized Metropolitan (item number 50205SKD) slat beds are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order, while twin-sized (item number 50470-12) and full-sized (item number 50480-12) metal bed headboards and the Upperclassman 2 shelf nightstand (item number 50568-152) are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; December 13, 2011.
Requestor: Delta Enterprise Corporation; its Delta Venetian changing table is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order; December 27, 2011.
Requestor: Nation Ford Chemical Co. and Sun Chemical Corp.; finished carbazole violet pigment exported from Japan, made from crude carbazole violet pigment from India and/or the People's Republic of China, is within the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders; October 14, 2011.
Requestor: M&B Metal Products Inc.; imports of steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam exported by Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co., Ltd. and Quyky Yanglei International Co., Ltd. are circumventing the antidumping duty order through means of third country assembly or completion of merchandise imported from the People's Republic of China; October 28, 2011.
None.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of pending scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International TradeAdministration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will hold a meeting via teleconference on Friday, July 27, 2012 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). The primary purposes of this meeting are to review updates on the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel transition plan, review the status of the research subcommittee and the August Smart Grid Workshop in Boulder, Colorado, and plan for a fall meeting. Interested members of the public will be able to participate in the meeting from remote locations by calling into a central phone number.
The SGAC will hold a meeting via teleconference on Friday, July 27, 2012, from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
Questions regarding the meeting should be sent to Office of the National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200. For instructions on how to participate in the meeting, please see the
Dr. George W. Arnold, National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2232, fax 301-975-4091; or via email at
The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
Background information on the Committee is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the SGAC will hold a meeting via teleconference on Friday, July 27, 2012, from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). There will be no central meeting location. The public is invited to participate in the meeting by calling in from remote locations. The primary purposes of this meeting are to review updates on the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel transition plan, review the status of the research subcommittee and the August Smart Grid Workshop in Boulder, Colorado, and plan for a fall meeting.
All participants of the meeting are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to participate must register by close of business on Friday, July 20, 2012, in order to be admitted. Please submit your name, email address, and phone number to Cuong Nguyen at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request detailed instructions on how to dial in from a remote location to participate in the meeting by contacting Cuong Nguyen at
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
The 97th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) will be held July 15-19, 2012. This notice contains information about significant items on the NCWM Committee agendas which will be considered at the meetings, but does not include all agenda items. As a result, the items are not consecutively numbered.
The meeting will be held on July 15-19, 2012.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, Maine 04101.
Ms. Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600; by telephone (301) 975-5507; or by email at
Publication of this notice on the NCWM's behalf is undertaken as a public service; NIST does not endorse, approve, or recommend any of the proposals contained in this notice or in the publications of the NCWM.
The NCWM is an organization of weights and measures officials of the states, counties, and cities of the United States, federal agencies, and private sector representatives. These meetings bring together government officials and representatives of business, industry, trade associations, and consumer organizations on subjects related to the field of weights and measures technology, administration and enforcement. NIST participates to promote uniformity among the states in laws, regulations, methods, and testing equipment that comprise the regulatory control of commercial weighing and measuring devices.
The following are brief descriptions of some of the significant agenda items that will be considered at the NCWM Annual Meeting. Comments will be taken on these during several public comment sessions. At this stage, the items are proposals. This meeting also includes work sessions in which the Committees may also accept oral or written comments, and where they will finalize recommendations for NCWM consideration and possible adoption at its voting sessions, which are scheduled for July 18-19, 2012. The Committees may withdraw or carryover items that need additional development.
The Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T Committee) will consider proposed amendments to NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” Those items address weighing and measuring devices used in commercial applications, that is, devices that are used to buy from or sell to the public or used for determining the quantity of product sold among businesses. Issues on the agenda of the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R Committee) relate to proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality” and NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.”
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 44:
The Committee will consider a proposal to add language to NIST Handbook 44 to clarify the requirement that hopper scales manufactured as of January 1, 1986, used to weigh grain, must be Accuracy Class III weighing devices. The submitter of this proposal believes that this revision is needed to help ensure that weights and measures officials uniformly apply the handbook's tolerances and other technical and use requirements to grain hopper scales.
The Committee will consider a proposal to add language to NIST Handbook 44 to add a new specification requiring these scales to have an automatic zero ready indicating device. The proposal also includes a requirement that users maintain equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and that a zero balance condition be established immediately prior to weighing a commodity for a commercial transaction.
Some gasoline and fuel retailers offer a variety of discounts to consumers on fuel prices in connection with marketing services and dispensing product. The Committee will consider the following proposal to modify Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices. The intent of this proposal is to require that retailers provide consumers with adequate transaction information to assist them in making value comparisons and ensure transparency when fuel purchases are discounted after a delivery.
Item 330-1 includes seven proposed requirements:
This proposal would modify device specifications to recognize current marketing practices of offering pre or post delivery discounts on fuel prices and require the final unit price information to be displayed.
This proposal would allow device manufacturers greater flexibility in the design and operation of customer operated controls on motor-fuel dispensers by recognizing the use of new technology in the selection of a unit price.
This proposal would exempt “total money values” displays on the dispenser and auxiliary equipment (such as the display on a remote control console in an operator's kiosk) from agreement requirements when retailers
This proposal would ensure that, except in fleet sales or under price contracts or where post-delivery discounts are provided, fuel dispensers will provide receipts with sufficient price and other information to allow customers to understand and verify the accuracy of price discounts. The requirement will also recognize the use of either digitally transmitted or printed receipts.
In cases where post delivery discounts on fuel purchases are offered, this proposal would require specific information be printed on receipts made available to consumers so they can verify the accuracy of the transaction and receive a printed record.
This proposal is intended to clarify the requirements for displaying or posting the final unit price of a fuel offered at a discount and periods where the highest unit price shall be displayed.
This proposal would require that customer receipts include adequate information to allow the customer to understand and verify any post delivery discounts the retailer provides in connection with a fuel sale.
The Committee will consider the adoption of a proposal to make tentative Code 5.59. in Handbook 44 enforceable so that it can be used to control the accuracy and the use of electronic carcass evaluation equipment. The equipment in this code is used commercially in livestock procurement operations to determine the value of the animals being purchased. Currently, there is no independent, third party verifying the accuracy of these devices. In 2010, 106.9 million hogs weighing 21.8 billion pounds with a total value of $15.7 billion were commercially purchased. Of these purchases, about 80 percent were made on a carcass yield weight basis using an electronic carcass evaluation device. In addition, electronic evaluation devices are used to measure composition or quality constituents in individual cuts of meat for further sale to consumers. Studies have shown that improper use of electronic carcass evaluation equipment can change the value of livestock, meat, and poultry.
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130 or NIST Handbook 133:
The Committee will consider a proposal to revise the density values used to calculate the net weights on packages of polyethylene products to recognize that heavier density plastics are now used in the manufacture of some sheeting and bags. (See also Item 260-4, Handbook 133, Chapter 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting—Test Procedure—Footnote to Step 3.)
The Committee will consider a proposal to require that kerosene sold from bulk storage at the retail level be solely on the basis of the gallon or liter (note: Kerosene sold in packaged form is already required under packaging and labeling regulations to be sold by fluid volume).
The Committee will consider a proposal to adopt a method of sale that includes product labeling, invoicing, and other requirements for motor oil sold to consumers as part of the oil change service. (See also Item 237-4, Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.)
A newly formed task group will develop proposals for methods of sale, labeling requirements and test procedures for packaged printer ink and toner cartridges. The NCWM has assigned the group the task of developing proposed regulations that would require manufacturers of these products to declare net weight statements on both toner and packaged printer ink cartridges. The goal in developing these requirements is to provide consumers with information on the net quantity of contents of these products so that value comparisons can be made, and the stated quantities can be verified by weights and measures officials. The task group will meet on Sunday, July 15, 2012, at the NCWM Annual Meeting.
The Committee will consider two proposals to adopt a national quality standard for commercial hydrogen fuel and to add hydrogen related definitions to the uniform engine fuel regulation. Both proposals would apply to hydrogen fuel sold through dispensing equipment for use in fuel cells and internal combustion engine vehicles. The first proposal would adopt the most recent version of SAE International's Standard J2719 “Hydrogen Fuel Quality for Fuel Cell Vehicles” by reference to establish quality requirements for hydrogen fuel, and the second proposal would define the hydrogen-related terms of “fuel cell,” “hydrogen fuel,” and “internal combustion engine.” (see also Item 232-7, Handbook 130 Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale Commodities, Section 2.32.1. Definitions for Hydrogen Fuel.)
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
On June 3, 2011, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) held a public meeting on its campus to explore the feasibility of establishing a NIST/Industry Consortium on Neutron Metrology for Soft Materials Manufacturing. The notice stated the membership fees would be on the order of Twenty Thousand ($20,000) per year. The initial term of the consortium was intended to be three years. As a result of the October 3, 2011, public meeting, revisions have
This notice is effective on June 29, 2012.
Questions about joining the consortium should be sent to Ronald Jones at the National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive; MS 8615; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8615.
Ronald L. Jones, Eric K. Lin, or Dan Neumann National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8514, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8514, USA; (301) 975-4624; Fax (301) 975-3928; Email:
NIST will form the “nSoft Consortium” to advance and transfer neutron based measurement methods for soft materials manufacturing. The goals of nSoft are to develop neutron-based measurements that address critical needs for manufacturers of soft materials such as polymers, complex fluids, and protein-based materials. Advances in neutron-based measurement science are anticipated through the development of sample environments that closely mimic manufacturing processes, measurement methods to probe and analyze complex mixtures, and data analysis models that support routine measurements with high information content. The consortium will be supervised and administered by NIST. Consortium research and development will be conducted by NIST staff members along with at least one technical representative from each participating member company.
Each member of the consortium will be required to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with NIST. Membership is limited to 40 for-profit institutions and 15 not-for-profit institutions. For-profit membership fees are Twenty Thousand ($20,000) per year, payable by Member to NIST at the time of CRADA execution and annually in August thereafter. For-profit membership fees for members who join in the second half of the year (February through July) will be Ten Thousand ($10,000), payable at the time of CRADA execution. Subsequent membership payments of Twenty Thousand ($20,000) shall be paid each year in August thereafter. Non-profit organizations in lieu of membership fees will contribute personal expertise and materials that are mutually acceptable to NIST and Member. The consortium is designated to last for an initial period of two years.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of prospective grant of exclusive patent license.
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), U.S. Department of Commerce, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license in the United States of America, its territories, possessions and commonwealths, to NIST's interest in the invention embodied in U.S. Patent Application No. 13/346,999 titled “Chirped-Pulse Terahertz Spectroscopy for Broadband Trace Gas Sensing,” NIST Docket No. 11-016 to TerBAT Inc., having a place of business at 2400 Trade Centre Ave, Longmont, CO 80503. The grant of the license would be for the field of use of medical diagnostic devices and environmental/industrial monitoring devices.
Cathy Cohn, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Partnerships Office, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, (301) 975-6691,
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen days from the date of this published Notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument which establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
U.S. Patent Application No. 13/346,999 is co-owned by the U.S. government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The invention comprises Terahertz spectroscopy methods that are fast and have excellent spectral resolution and that do not require background correction of the instrument response without sample are disclosed. In one instance, the methods include phase coherent chirp pulse generation and phase coherent detection.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice of prospective grant of exclusive patent license.
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), U.S. Department of Commerce, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license in the United States of America, its territories, possessions and commonwealths, to NIST's interest in the invention embodied in U.S. Patent No. 6,393,566 titled “Timestamp Service for the National Information Network,” NIST Docket No. 95-022 to RSIP LLC, having a place of business at 8 East Figueroa, Suite 220, Santa Barbara, California 93101. The grant of the license would be for the field of use of Digital Timestamping.
Cathy Cohn, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Partnerships Office, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Phone 301-975-6691,
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen days from the date of this published Notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument which establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
U.S. Patent No. 6,393,566 is owned by the U.S. government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. The invention is a system and method for
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of prospective grant of exclusive patent license.
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), U.S. Department of Commerce, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license in the United States of America, its territories, possessions and commonwealths, to NIST's interest in the invention embodied in U.S. Patent No. 7,709,807 (Application No. 12/116,522), titled “Magneto-Optical Trap Ion Source,” NIST Docket No. 07-015 and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/369,008 titled “Charged Particle Source from a Photoionized Cold Atom Beam,” NIST Docket No. 11-018 to LoTIS Technologies LLC, having a place of business at 18026 Royal Bonnet Circle, Montgomery Village, Maryland 20886. The grant of the license would be for the field: Devices that produce or include a focused beam of electrons and/or ions.
Cathy Cohn, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Partnerships Office, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, (301) 975-6691,
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen days from the date of this published Notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument which establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
U.S. Patent No. 7,709,807 and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/369,008 are owned by the U.S. government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. U.S. Patent No. 7,709,807 describes a system and method for producing a source of ions, and particularly, a focused ion beam. The system and method use a magneto-optical trap (MOT) to produce a population of neutral atoms. A laser is then utilized to ionize atoms and produce a population of ions. An extraction element is then used to transfer the ions so that they can be used in a wide array of applications. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/369,008 describes a system for producing a charged particle beam from a photoionized cold atom beam. A vapor of neutral atoms is generated. From these atoms, an atom beam having axial and transverse velocity distributions controlled by the application of laser light is produced. The produced atom beam is spatially compressed along each transverse axis, thus reducing the cross-sectional area of the produced beam and reducing a velocity spread of the produced beam along directions transverse to the beam's direction of propagation. Laser light is directed onto at least a portion of the neutral atoms in the atom beam, thereby producing ions and electrons. An electric field is generated at the location of the produced ions and electrons, thereby producing a beam of ions traveling in a first direction and electrons traveling in substantially the opposite direction. A vacuum chamber contains the atom beam, the ion beam and the electron beam.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
On June 28, 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule that considered requiring, among other things, Federal Atlantic swordfish, shark, and tunas dealers (except for dealers reporting Atlantic bluefin tuna) to report commercially-harvested Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack (BAYS) tunas through one centralized electronic reporting system. This electronic reporting system will allow dealers to submit Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tuna data on a more real-time basis and more efficiently, which will reduce duplicative data submissions from different regions. We proposed to delay the effective date of the electronic reporting requirements until 2013 in order to give sufficient time for dealers to adjust to implementation of the new system and the additional requirements. On December 14, 2011, we conducted an initial training workshop in the Caribbean area in order to introduce the new reporting system to HMS dealers. In this notice, we announce the date and location for additional training workshops in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions in order to continue introducing HMS dealers to the new electronic system.
Training workshops for the new electronic dealer system will be held from July through September 2012. See
Workshops will be held in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico; St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands (U.S.V.I.); Belle Chase, Louisiana; Dulac, Louisiana; Panama City, Florida; Port Orange, Florida; Seminole, Florida; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Marathon, Florida Keys. See
Delisse Ortiz or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 427-8503 (phone), or Jackie Wilson at (240) 338-3936, or (301) 713-
Atlantic HMS are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801
The current regulations and infrastructure of the Atlantic HMS quota-monitoring systems result in a delay of several weeks or more before NMFS receives dealer data. This can affect management and monitoring of small Atlantic HMS quotas and short fishing seasons. As such, on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37750), we published a proposed rule in the
In order to give sufficient time for dealers to adjust to implementation of the new system and the additional requirements, we proposed delaying implementation of the new HMS electronic reporting system for all federally-permitted HMS dealers until 2013. Additionally, we decided to conduct outreach to HMS dealers to train them how to use the new system and help ease the transition from the current paper format to the new HMS electronic reporting system. We conducted an initial training workshop for HMS dealers in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. on December 14, 2011, and in this notice we are announcing additional training workshops in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and Caribbean regions. However, we are not holding a training workshop in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. at this time; we are working on scheduling an additional training session in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. in the future.
These workshops will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Delisse Ortiz at (301) 425-8503 or Jackie Wilson at (240) 338-3936 at least 7 days prior to the workshop date. The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the workshop to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each workshop, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; each attendee will have an opportunity to ask questions; and attendees should not interrupt one another). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules; if they do not, they will be asked to leave the workshop.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of committee meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) will meet July 16-17, 2012, in
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA.
Steve MacLean, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
This public meeting will occur during the scoping period for the Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures EIS (77 FR 22750, April 17, 2012). Information on EIS development, potential alternatives, and issues for analysis may be discussed. The public is encouraged to attend in this meeting, however, comments specific to the EIS should be submitted in writing to NMFS before the close of the scoping period on October 15, 2012. More information on the EIS scoping process and instructions for submitting written public comments are available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
Additional information is posted on the Council Web site:
The meeting will be webcast at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Todd Robeck, D.V.M, Ph.D., Sea World Parks and Entertainment Corp, 500 Sea World Drive, San Diego, CA 92109, has applied in due form for a permit to receive, import, and export specimens of marine mammals for scientific research.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 30, 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:
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.
Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (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 is requesting authorization to receive, import, and export an unlimited number of cetacean and pinniped specimens (from several species of dolphin, pilot whales, beluga whales, killer whales, South American sea lions, Steller sea lions, and Hawaiian monk seals) including but not limited to reproductive cells and organs, urine, feces, teeth, skin, saliva, ocular and nasal secretions, and whole blood taken from dead or captive individuals to study reproductive physiology, including endocrinology, gamete biology, and cryophysiology.
Specimens from dead animals, located solely within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. or Canada, would be collected under the following circumstances: Legal subsistence harvesting; killed incidentally to fishing or other operations; found dead at sea or beached; or that died of natural causes. No specimens would be imported from animals killed during high seas driftnet fisheries or during a direct fishery. From dead animals, samples from not more than 40 animals per species are anticipated to be collected per year. For captive animals, specimens would be collected from animals that are being housed in countries or situations where such activity is legal and from animals that have been behaviorally conditioned for specimen donation or during normal USDA approved animal husbandry procedures. For live animals, unlimited specimens would be collected for import or export from not more than 20 individual animals per species per year. Specimens may be taken at anytime of the year and in all areas worldwide where pinnipeds and cetaceans are found. The requested duration of the permit is five years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops; correction.
NMFS announces that the date of the Atlantic Shark Identification workshop originally scheduled for August 9, 2012, in Rosenberg, TX, has been changed to August 16, 2012. This workshop notice originally published on June 4, 2012. The August 16, 2012, workshop will be held from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. at LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 28332 SW Freeway 59, Rosenberg, TX 77471. The July and September workshop dates remain unchanged. Atlantic Shark Identification workshops are mandatory for Atlantic Shark Dealer permit holders or their proxies. Additional free workshops will be held in 2012, and announced in the
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop scheduled for August 9, 2012, in Rosenberg, TX, has been rescheduled for August 16, 2012. See
The location of the rescheduled workshop has not changed. See
Richard A. Pearson of the Highly Migratory Species Management Division at (727) 824-5399.
In the
2. August 16, 2012, from 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 28332 SW Freeway 59, Rosenberg, TX 77471.
16 U.S.C., 1801
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and to delete products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Mess Attendant Services tasks are defined in the Performance Work Statement and include replenishing tableware and table items, cleaning dining room tables and chairs or benches as needed, including spills, after each meal service, providing cashier services; cleaning and sanitizing food service equipment and utensils; washing, rinsing, and drying tableware, cookware, and kitchen and serving line utensils; cleaning tops and sides of dining tables, monitoring the cleanliness of the Salad Bar area during meal periods, and serving food on the line throughout the duration of the meal period.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Reestablishment.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has determined to reestablish the charter of its Agricultural Advisory Committee.
Gail B. Scott, Committee Management Officer, at 202-418-5139. Written comments should be submitted to David A. Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Electronic comments may be submitted to
Comments may also be submitted by any of the following methods:
The agency's Web site, at
Please submit your comments using only one method and identity that it is for the reestablishment of the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) has determined to reestablish its Agricultural Advisory Committee. The Commission has determined that reestablishing the advisory committee is in the public interest in connection with the duties imposed on the Commission by the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1-26, as amended. The Agricultural Advisory Committee will operate for two years from the date of renewal unless, before the expiration of that time period, its charter is renewed in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or the Chairman of the Commission, with the concurrence of the other Commissioners, shall direct that the advisory committee terminate on an earlier date.
The purpose of the Agricultural Advisory Committee is to conduct public meetings and submit reports and recommendations to assist the
Meetings of the Agricultural Advisory Committee are open to the public.
The Commission may reestablish the Agricultural Advisory Committee by filing the reestablishment charter with the Commission; the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; the House Committee on Agriculture; the Library of Congress; and the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat at least fifteen (15) calendar days after this notice of reestablishment appears in the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
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 12-28 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco has requested a possible enhancement and refurbishment of 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks, provided as part of a grant Excess Defense Article (EDA) transfer notified to Congress on 27 April 2011, to the M1A1 Special Armor (SA) configuration. The possible sale will also provide 150 AN/VRC-87E and 50 AN/VRC-89E Exportable Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS), 200 M2 Chrysler Mount Machine Guns, and 400 7.62MM M240 Machine Guns. The possible sale also includes 12,049,842 Ammunition Rounds (including 1400 C785 SABOT, 1800 CA31 HEAT, and 5400 AA38 SLAP-T), 200 M250 Smoke Grenade Launchers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, communication support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.015 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major Non-NATO ally that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Africa.
This package of M1A1 tank enhancements will contribute to the modernization of Morocco's tank fleet, enhancing its ability to meet current and future threats. These tanks will contribute to Morocco's goal of updating its military capability while further enhancing interoperability with the U.S. and other allies.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Refurbishment work will be performed at Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Alabama and the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Morocco involving up to 64 U.S. Government and 13 contractor representatives for a period of up to five years to manage the fielding and training for the program.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The M1A1 Abrams Tanks components considered to contain sensitive technology in the proposed program are as follows:
a. The M1A1 Thermal Imaging System (TIS) 2nd Gen Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) constitutes a target acquisition system which, when operated with other tank systems, gives the tank crew a substantial advantage over the potential threat. The TIS provides the M1A1 crew with the ability to effectively aim and fire the tank main armament system under a broad range of adverse battlefield conditions. The hardware itself is Unclassified. The engineering design and manufacturing data associated with the detector and infrared (IR) optics and coatings are considered sensitive. The technical data package is Unclassified with the exception of the specifications for target acquisition range (Confidential), nuclear hardening (Confidential, restricted data) and laser hardening (Secret).
b. The M1A1 Tank Special Armor and other special armors used in the hull and turret are classified at the Secret level. Major components of Special Armor are fabricated in sealed modules and in serialized removable subassemblies. Special Armor components and associated vulnerability data for both chemical and kinetic energy rounds are classified Secret.
c. The use of the Advanced Gas Turbine-1500 (AGT-1500) Gas Turbine Propulsion System in the MlA1 is a unique application of armored vehicle power pack technology. The hardware is composed of the AGT-1500 engine and transmission, and is Unclassified. Manufacturing processes associated with the production of turbine blades, recuperator, bearings and shafts, and hydrostatic pump and motor, are proprietary and therefore commercially competition sensitive.
d. A major survivability feature of the Abrams Tank is the compartmentalization of fuel and ammunition. Compartmentalization is the positive separation of the crew and critical components from combustible materials. In the event that the fuel or ammunition is ignited or deteriorated by an incoming threat round, the crew is fully protected by the compartmentalization. Sensitive information includes the performance of the ammunition compartments as well as the compartment design parameters.
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 or equivalent systems which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of availability.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Sacramento District has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to analyze the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of implementing the No Action alternative and three large-scale, mixed-use development alternatives in the approximately 5,749-acre Mather Specific Plan area, Sacramento County, California (note that approximately 2,554 acres of the Plan area contains existing development, primarily Mather Airport, a Commerce Center, a residential subdivision, lake and golf course).
The purpose of the DEIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with information pertaining to the Applicant's Preferred Alternative and alternatives, and to disclose environmental impacts and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts. The DEIS documents the existing
All written comments must be postmarked on or before August 13, 2012.
Comments may be submitted in writing to: Kathleen Dadey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Regulatory Division; 1325 J Street, Room 1350, Sacramento, CA 95814-2922, or via email to Kathleen.A.Dadey@usace.army.mil.
Kathleen Dadey at 916-557-5250, or via email at
Sacremento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing (applicant) is seeking authorization from USACE for the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to develop portions of the Mather Specific Plan area. The overall project purpose is a large scale, mixed use development to promote economic and wetland conservation opportunities within the Mather Specific Plan area. All of the build alternatives include the following land uses: airport commercial, commercial development, parks and recreation, aggregate extraction, university village/residential, regional sports park and infrastructure, including roadways.
Alternative A, the Applicant's Preferred Alternative, includes approximately 1,910 acres of development a 1,272-acre Preserve and a 13-acre riparian buffer area. The applicant proposes to fill a total of 40.25 acres of waters of the U.S., including seasonal wetlands, vernal pools and swales, channels and drainage ditches. The preserved areas would provide protection for wetlands (including vernal pools) and endangered species, including vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and legenere. The Preserve would also protect federally listed critical habitat.
Alternative B is based on a land use plan for the Mather Specific Plan area that was conceptually endorsed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in February 2006. Alternative B includes a 1,064-acre Preserve and 27 acre riparian buffer area which would provide protection for wetlands and endangered species. This alternative anticipates development of approximately 2,011 acres. Alternative B also includes four “avoidance areas” totaling 93 acres within the parks and recreation and university village/residential areas. Impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with Alternative B would 39.64 acres.
Alternative C proposes land uses identical to Alternative A with the addition of three smaller Preserves within the commercial development and university village/residential areas, with a total of 33.65 acres of fill into waters of the U.S. Alternative C would develop approximately 1,836 acreas and includes 1,346 acres of Preserve and 13 acres of riparian buffer area. Preserve areas would provide protection for wetlands and endangered species.
Alternative D, No Action/No USACE permit, avoids the placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. A reduced amount of future development could occur without Department of the Army authorization, including infill development at Mather Airport and aggregate extraction in the southwestern corner of the project site. Because this alternative does not anticipate substantial economic development and related revenue to fund active management of a Preserve, however, the level of protection and management of wetland resources, listed species and their habitat is unknown.
Comments on the DEIS must be submitted to USACE by August 13, 2012. The public and affected Federal, State and local agencies, Native American Tribes, and other organizations and parties are invited to comment. An electronic copoy of the DEIS may be found on the USACE Web site at:
The USACE will conduct a public meeting for the DEIS on July 25, 2012 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Main Conference Room A at 10590 Armstrong Avenue, Mather, California 95655. Interested parties can provide oral and written comments at this meeting.
In addition to this
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice.
The three locks in the Twin Cities (Upper St. Anthony Falls, Lower St. Anthony Falls, and Lock and Dam 1) located in Minneapolis, MN, on the Mississippi River, currently operate at Service Level 1 (24 hours per day/7 days per week) during the navigation season. It is proposed that these three locks and dams transition to Service Level 2 for the 2013 navigation season and beyond. The navigation season on the Upper Mississippi normally begins in March, depending on river conditions. Under Service Level 2, the locks will operate from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and will be closed to lockages between 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Constrained funding has led to reduced Operations and Maintenance funding within the Corps' Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS). The intended effect of the proposed change reduces operational costs and aligns lock availability with existing levels of lock usage. The Twin Cities locks have less than 1000 commercial lockages per year. Based on guidance adopted by the IMTS Board of Directors, locks operating at Service Level 1 should pass more than 1,000 commercial lockages per year. Pool levels will not be affected by change of operating hours.
Submit written comments by August 30, 2012, to Mr. Kevin Baumgard, Deputy Chief, Operations Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700, St. Paul, MN 55101-1678, or by email at
Mr. Michael Kidby at Corps of Engineers
Public meeting: August 7, 2012, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Headquarters, 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN.
The legal authority for the regulation governing the use, administration, and navigation of the Twin Cities locks is Section 4 of the River and Harbor Act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat. 362), as amended, which is codified at 33 U.S.C. Section 1. This statute requires the Secretary of the Army to “prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States” as the Secretary determines may be required by public necessity. Reference 33 CFR 207.300, Mississippi River below mouth of Ohio River, including South and Southwest Passes; use, administration, and navigation.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, the Department of the Navy (DoN) announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of developing an academic campus on Naval Base Coronado (NBC) to support the current and future operational readiness of personnel with the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC). The proposed campus would include a mix of instructional and administrative facilities that would provide for indoor classroom and tactical training instruction, and equipment use, maintenance, and storage. Specific proposed actions within the Coastal Campus proposal are: (1) Evaluation of current land use and available facilities; (2) augmentation by design and construction of new facilities to support logistics, equipment use and maintenance training, classroom and tactical skills instruction, storage, and administration; and, (3) design and build of related site improvements that may include upgraded utilities, fencing, roads, and parking. An EIS is considered the appropriate document for comprehensively analyzing the potential environmental impacts of implementing this proposed action.
1. Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Marina Vista Community Center, 1075 Eighth Street, Imperial Beach, California, 91932.
2. Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Winn Room, Coronado Public Library, 640 Orange Avenue, Coronado, California, 92118.
Additional information concerning meeting times and locations is available on the EIS Web site at
Public scoping meetings will include open house sessions, with information stations staffed by the DoN representatives. Comments, both written and oral, will be collected at each of the two public scoping meetings, and written comments may also be made electronically on the project Web site. Spanish translation will be available at the public meetings and the project Web site accommodates Spanish language users.
Naval Base Coronado Coastal Campus EIS Project Manager, Attn: Ms. Teresa Bresler, 2730 McKean Street, Bldg 291, San Diego, California 92136.
NSWC is the maritime component of United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Based at NAB Coronado, California, NSWC's mission is to organize, train, man, equip, educate, sustain, maintain combat readiness, and deploy Naval Special Warfare (NSW) forces to carry out special operations missions worldwide. NSW forces operate independently or in conjunction with other special operations forces (SOF), joint forces, allied units, and coalition forces.
NSWC currently conducts administrative and extensive logistics support, equipment use and maintenance training and classroom and tactical skills instruction on the Silver Strand Training Complex-North (SSTC-N) and Silver Strand Training Complex South (SSTC-S), Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado, Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), and Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach (NOLFIB), and Camp Michael Monsoor. Although all of the facilities currently used by NSWC are located on components of NBC, they are over-utilized as well as widely dispersed and not conveniently co-located.
To support Congressionally-mandated growth of NSWC and to meet its current and anticipated mission requirements, the DoN is proposing a Coastal Campus at NBC. The proposed Coastal Campus would support future operational readiness by augmenting available NSWC facilities and reducing fragmentation and space deficiencies, while providing an integrated campus that accommodates primacy and privacy, characteristics of learning required for the development of these skill sets.
The proposed Coastal Campus would augment the current facilities used by NSWC. Specific proposed actions within the Coastal Campus proposal are as follows.
(1) Evaluation of current land use and available facilities.
(2) Augmentation by design and construction of new facilities to support logistics, equipment use and maintenance training, classroom and tactical skills instruction, storage, and administration.
(3) Design and build of related site improvements that may including utilities, fencing, roads, and parking. Due to the functional linkages and the geographic proximity of the components, the proposed Coastal Campus could be sited at SSTC-S, SSTC-N including NAB Coronado, NASNI, or NOLFIB, or a combination of these locations, all within the footprint of NBC.
Accordingly, the purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide adequate facilities to support growth of NSWC and to maintain the required levels of operational readiness of special warfare forces, as mandated by Title 10 of U.S.C. Section 167 and Section 5062. The need for the proposed action is the lack of sufficient facilities and space to support NSWC's administrative, logistics, and classroom and tactical instruction functions. The Proposed Action would meet this need by optimizing both facilities and use of space, including synchronistic site improvements, within the existing NBC footprint. This would allow NSWC to support fluctuating organizational structure and mandated mission requirements.
The specific arrangement of built assets, number of buildings and required space would be developed and refined during the NEPA process based on scoping, impacts analysis and results of resource surveys. The DoN proposes 25 projects on NBC over a period of approximately ten years. Each of these projects would be refined as they are studied and evaluated during the Coastal Campus EIS process. The Coastal Campus EIS, when completed, would provide an analytic baseline from which each successive NSWC project may be optimally designed in terms of land use, facilities and infrastructure, and impacts to resources found within the study area.
(1) Alternative 1 (SSTC-S Alternative) consists of:
○ Consolidation of the necessary NSWC facilities to one location on the northern half of SSTC-S.
○ Design and construction of logistical support buildings, equipment use and maintenance training facilities, classroom and tactical skills instruction buildings, storage and administrative facilities, utilities, fencing, roads, and parking.
○ Construction of a new entry controlled point providing immediate access to SSTC-S from State Route 75, utilizing sustainable design for all facilities as is practicable.
(2) Alternative 2 (SSTC-S Design II expanded footprint Alternative) would include all of the components of Alternative 1, but the design footprint would increase by expanding the footprint down to the southern fence line of the SSTC-S boundary.
(3) Alternative 3 (Multi-Installation Alternative) would site necessary NSWC facilities at more than one location to include NAB Coronado, NASNI, NOLFIB, and SSTC-S incorporating sustainable design into all facilities as is practicable.
(4) Alternative 4 (No Action Alternative) would maintain existing land uses and training facilities as currently utilized at NBC. No new improvements would occur. Current programmed levels of use (type, tempo, location), including requirements for planned force growth, would continue. As a result, NSWC would continue to have limited space for current and future training support, as well as an inability to cope with Congressionally-mandated expanding training needs. Without consolidation of classroom and support facilities, NSWC personnel would continue to transit between SSTC-N/NAB Coronado, SSTC-S, and NOLFIB. This would continue inefficiency and fragmentation of training and increased expenses, and the environmental consequences would persist (e.g., air emissions and energy consumption of vehicle miles traveled). By limiting facilities and land use support to accommodate NSWC growth and expansion, Alternative 4—No Action Alternative would not achieve the mission of NSWC; however, it will be studied as a baseline of current land and facilities use.
Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be postmarked no later than July 30, 2012. Comments may be mailed to the EIS Project Manager (Attn: Ms. Teresa Bresler), 2730 McKean Street, Bldg. 291, San Diego, California, 92136. Comments may also be submitted via the EIS Web site at
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to add a system of records.
The Department of the Navy proposes to add a system of records in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The blanket (k)(1) exemption applies to this systems of records to accurately describe the basis for exempting disclosure of classified information that is or may be contained in the records.
This proposed action will be effective on July 30, 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:
*
*
Ms. Robin Patterson, Department of the Navy, DNS-36, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000 or call at (202) 685-6545.
The Department of the Navy notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Navy Cash® Financial System.
Navy Cash is installed on all Navy ships with a Disbursing Officer. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List, which is available as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of records notices and may be obtained from the System Manager.
The Navy Cash back-end ashore is operated by a U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Agent, JPMorgan Chase, Treasury Services, 10430 Highland Manor Drive, Tampa, FL 33610-9128.
Navy and Marine Corps Active and Reserve military members, civilian employees, and contractors and civilians assigned to duty or visiting on board Navy ships.
Individual's name, military branch or company name, Social Security Number (SSN), rate, rank, title, pay grade, date of birth, mother's maiden name or keyword, military duty address, residence/permanent address, work telephone number, cell telephone phone, email address, bank or credit union name, city, state, and zip code, ABA routing number, account number, name on account, account type, Navy Cash/Marine Cash card number, electronic signature (future capability), Automated Clearing House (ACH) Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) requests, returned EFT requests, collections of debts, collections of payments, account balances, transaction history, and purchase history.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 5041, Headquarters Marine Corps; 31 U.S.C. 321, General Authority of the Secretary of the Treasury; Pub. L. 104-134, Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, as amended; Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoDFMR) 7000.14-R, as amended; 5 U.S.C. 5514, Installment deduction for indebtedness to the United States; 31 U.S.C. 1322, Payments of unclaimed trust fund amounts and refund of amounts erroneously deposited; 31 U.S.C. 3720, Collection of payments; 31 U.S.C. 3720A, Reduction of tax refund by amount of debt; 31 U.S.C. 7701, Taxpayer indentifying number; 37 U.S.C. 1007, Deductions from pay; 31 CFR 210, Federal Government Participation in the Automated Clearing House; 31 CFR 285, Debt Collection Authorities under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
To provide an electronic cash management application that replaces bills and coins for purchases on the ship; provides Sailors and Marines on board ship with electronic access to their Navy Cash accounts and a portion of pay each pay day (Split Pay Option), 24/7 offline access to bank and credit union accounts ashore, and the ability to move money electronically to and from Navy Cash accounts and bank and credit union accounts; and provides access off the ship to funds in Navy Cash accounts at merchants and ATMs worldwide.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal and Financial Agents, and their contractors involved in providing Navy Cash services.
The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' published at the beginning of the Department of the Navy's compilation of system of records notices may apply to this system.
Paper file folders and electronic storage media.
Name, Social Security Number (SSN), and Navy Cash/Marine Cash card number.
Paper and electronic records on board ship are maintained in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel, e.g., the Disbursing Office or Sales Office. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks and administrative procedures. Access to personal information is restricted to those who require the records in the performance of their official duties. Access to personal information stored electronically is further restricted by the use of user names and passwords (current) and Common Access Card (CAC) (future). All individuals granted access will have received Information Assurance and Privacy Act training.
Records are maintained for 6 years and 3 months after the period covered by the individual accounts and then destroyed by burning or shredding or by degaussing, erasing, deleting, or overwriting.
Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, Navy Cash Program Office (N3/4), 5450 Carlisle Pike, Building 309, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0791.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, Navy Cash Program Office (N3/4), 5450 Carlisle Pike, Building 309, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0791.
The request should be signed and include full name, last four digits of Social Security Number (SSN), rate/rank, and a complete mailing address. The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual requesting access to the records.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, Navy Cash Program Office (N3/4), 5450 Carlisle Pike, Building 309, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0791.
The request should be signed and include full name, last four digits of Social Security Number (SSN), rate/rank, and a complete mailing address. The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual requesting access to the records.
The Navy's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individual.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2) and (3)(c) and (e) and it published at 32 CFR part 701.
The Federal Perkins Loan Program allows for assignment of certain defaulted loans from schools to continued collection efforts when the school has exhausted all of its efforts in recovering an outstanding loan. The Perkins Assignment Form serves as the transmittal document in the assignment of such loans to the Federal Government.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 28, 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.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
Catalog Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.007
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program; 84.033 Federal Work-Study Programs; 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program; 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program; 84.268 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program; 84.408 Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant Program.
The Secretary announces deadline dates for the receipt of documents and other information from institutions and applicants for the Federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, for the 2011-2012 award year. The Federal student aid programs include the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Pell Grant, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan), Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant programs.
These programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Education (Department), provide financial assistance to students attending eligible postsecondary educational institutions to help them pay their educational costs.
Table A provides information and deadline dates for application processing, including receipt of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and corrections to and signatures for the FAFSA, receipt of ISIRs and SARs, and receipt of verification documents.
The deadline date for the receipt of a FAFSA by the Department's Central Processing System is June 30, 2012, regardless of the method that the applicant uses to submit the FAFSA. The deadline date for the receipt of a signature page for the FAFSA (if required), corrections, changes of addresses or schools, or requests for a duplicate SAR is September 21, 2012. Verification documents must be received by the institution no later than the earlier of 120 days after the student's last date of enrollment or September 28, 2012. As a reminder, verification is not required for unsubsidized Direct Stafford Loans and PLUS Loans, TEACH Grants, and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants.
For all Federal student aid programs except Direct PLUS Loans made to parent borrowers, an ISIR or SAR with an official expected family contribution must be received by the institution no later than the earlier of the student's last date of enrollment for the 2011-2012 award year or September 28, 2012. For Direct PLUS Loans made to parent borrowers, FAFSA information processed by the Secretary must be received by the institution no later than the earlier of the student's last date of enrollment for the 2011-2012 award year or September 28, 2012. For purposes of only the Federal Pell Grant Program, a valid ISIR or a valid SAR for a student not meeting the conditions for a late disbursement must be received no later than the earlier of the student's last date of enrollment or September 28, 2012. A valid ISIR or valid SAR for a student meeting the conditions for a late disbursement under the Federal Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, Federal Perkins Loan or Direct Subsidized Loan programs must be received according to the deadline dates provided in Table A.
In accordance with the regulations in 34 CFR 668.164(g)(4)(i), an institution may not make a late disbursement later than 180 days after the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew, as provided in 34 CFR 668.22, or for a student who did not withdraw, 180 days after the date the student otherwise became ineligible. Table A provides that an institution must receive a valid ISIR or valid SAR no later than 180 days after its determination of a student's withdrawal or, for a student who did not withdraw, 180 days after the date the student otherwise became ineligible, but not later than September 28, 2012.
Table B provides the earliest submission and deadline dates for institutions to submit Federal Pell Grant and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant disbursement records to the Department's Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System and deadline dates for requests for administrative relief if the institution cannot meet the established deadline for specified reasons.
In general, an institution must submit Federal Pell Grant or Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant disbursement records no later than 30 days after making a Federal Pell Grant or Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant disbursement or becoming aware of the need to adjust a student's previously reported Federal Pell Grant or Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant disbursement. In accordance with the regulations in 34 CFR 668.164, we consider that Federal Pell Grant and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant funds are disbursed on the date that the institution: (a) Credits those funds to a student's account at the institution or (b) pays those funds to a student directly. We consider that Federal Pell Grant and Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant funds are disbursed even if an institution uses its own funds in advance of receiving program funds from the Department. An institution's failure to submit disbursement records within the required 30-day timeframe may result in an audit or program review finding. In addition, the Secretary may initiate an adverse action, such as a fine or other penalty for such failure, in accordance with subpart G of part 668.
Table C provides the earliest submission and deadline dates for institutions to submit Direct Loan and TEACH Grant disbursement records to the Department's COD System.
In general, an institution must submit Direct Loan or TEACH Grant disbursement records no later than 30 days after making a Direct Loan or TEACH Grant disbursement or becoming aware of the need to adjust a student's previously reported Direct Loan or TEACH Grant disbursement. In accordance with the regulations in 34 CFR 668.164, we consider that Direct Loan and TEACH Grant funds are disbursed on the date that the institution: (a) Credits those funds to a student's account at the institution, or (b) pays those funds to a student directly. We consider that Direct Loan and TEACH Grant funds are disbursed even if an institution uses its own funds in advance of receiving program funds from the Department. An institution's failure to submit disbursement records within the required 30-day timeframe may result in an audit or program review finding. In addition, the Secretary may initiate an adverse action, such as a fine or other penalty for such failure.
We publish a detailed discussion of the Federal student aid application process in the following publications:
•
•
•
•
Additional information on the institutional reporting requirements for the Federal Pell Grant Program, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant Program, Direct Loan Program, and TEACH Grant Program is contained in the 2011-2012
You may access these publications by selecting the “Publications” link at the Information for Financial Aid Professionals Web site at:
(1) Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668,
(2) Federal Pell Grant Program, 34 CFR part 690,
(3) William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, 34 CFR part 685, and
(4) Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, 34 CFR part 686.
Ian Foss, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street, NE., Union Center Plaza, Room 114I1, Washington, DC 20202-5345. Telephone: (202) 377-3681. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a-1, 1070b-1070b-4, 1070g, 1070h, 1087a-1087j, and 1087aa-1087ii; 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b.
Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of availability.
The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of a draft evaluation which shows that the concentrator feed makeup tank and melter feed hold tank (the vessels) which were used in conjunction with vitrifying waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and certain treatment material at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), located at the Western New York Service Center in West Valley, New York, are waste incidental to reprocessing and thus are not high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and may be managed and disposed of offsite as low-level waste (LLW). DOE prepared the draft evaluation pursuant to DOE Manual 435.1-1,
The comment period will end August 13, 2012. Comments received after that time will be considered to the extent practicable.
The draft waste evaluation is available on the Internet at
For further information about this draft waste evaluation, please contact Mr. Daniel Sullivan at the mailing address or Web site listed in
The vessels were used in the vitrification process to prepare and temporarily store pre-treated HLW slurry supplied to the vitrification melter. They were used as part of the process to solidify the HLW which had been generated by commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York, by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., from 1966 through 1972. DOE undertook the solidification activities pursuant to DOE's responsibilities under the WVDP Act. To solidify the waste, DOE vitrified the waste (combined it at a high temperature with borosilicate glass) and transferred the molten glass-waste mixture into specially developed stainless steel canisters where the mixture hardened into a solid glass waste form.
DOE operated the vitrification system between 1996 and 2002. In 2002, prior to shut down, the vessels were flushed with high pressure demineralized water so as to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent technically and economically practical. The vessels with their remaining residual waste were characterized for radioactivity and determined to have radionuclide concentrations that do not exceed concentration limits for Class C LLW. They were removed from the vitrification cell in 2004 and are presently safely stored at the WVDP in transportation containers that meet Department of Transportation Industrial Package 2 requirements. The vessels were further stabilized by filling them with cement grout. As explained in the draft evaluation, they would be disposed of at a suitable off-site LLW waste disposal facility, either the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site at DOE's Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nevada or the Waste Control Specialists Federal Facility Waste Disposal Facility near Andrews, Texas. DOE would dispose of the vessel waste packages in accordance with applicable waste acceptance criteria using specific waste profile documentation.
DOE Manual 435.1-1, which implements DOE Order 435.1,
(1) Key radionuclides have been removed to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical;
(2) The waste will be managed to meet safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 61, subpart C,
(3) The waste will be managed, pursuant to DOE's authority under the
The draft waste-incidental-to-reprocessing evaluation summarizes DOE's analysis and shows that the vessels:
(1) Have had key radionuclides removed to the maximum extent technically and economically practical;
(2) Will be managed to meet safety requirements comparable to the NRC performance objectives at 10 CFR part 61, subpart C; and
(3) Will be in a solid physical form that does not exceed concentration limits for Class C LLW and will be managed and disposed of pursuant to DOE's authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter IV of DOE Manual 435.1-1.
Accordingly, the draft evaluation demonstrates using the waste-incidental-to-reprocessing evaluation process that the West Valley vessel waste packages may be managed and disposed of as LLW. The vessel waste packages will meet the applicable waste acceptance criteria for the selected offsite LLW disposal facility, either the NNSS Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site or the Waste Control Specialists Federal Facility Waste Disposal Facility in Texas. The vessel waste packages have been approved for disposal by the NNSS in case a final decision is made to send the waste package to that site for disposal.
DOE is consulting with the NRC before finalizing this evaluation. Although not required by DOE Manual 435.1-1, DOE is making the draft evaluation available for public and state review and comment during the NRC consultative review period. DOE plans to issue a final determination as to whether the vessels are HLW or can be managed and disposed of as LLW following review and consultation with the NRC and consideration of public and state comments.
DOE's decision on the disposal site to be used is not within the scope of this draft evaluation. Any DOE decision on the facility to which the vessel waste packages would be sent would be made after the final DOE evaluation and determination, following consideration of NRC and public comments on this draft evaluation, and after DOE confers with appropriate State officials in the state where the waste packages may be disposed.
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during May 2012, it issued Orders granting authority to import and export natural gas and liquefied natural gas. These Orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will enable a user-based evaluation of submitted entries to the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Competition (L Prize®) competition. The L Prize competition was authorized to encourage development and deployment of highly energy efficient solid-state lighting products. The proposed collection will assist in evaluating the entries in a real-world environment to insure that winning products do not exhibit undesirable or poor qualities that are not identified from formal laboratory testing by the DOE. These undesirable attributes could be a hindrance to sales of the winning product and could negatively impact the energy reduction potential of the competition. Additionally, the DOE wishes to gauge program success by periodically obtaining quantitative data about the effectiveness of the promotions and campaigns which are directly tied to L Prize winners. The quantitative data will be a survey asking five qualitative questions about the occupant's overall satisfaction of the lights. The brief assessments will be collected by the site's partner sponsor and returned, along with the entrant lamps, to DOE at the conclusion of the field assessment.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before July 30, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
And to
James R. Brodrick, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by email at
James R. Brodrick, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by email at
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. New; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Bright Tomorrow Lighting Competition (L Prize®): Field Assessment and Post Prize Monitoring; (3) Type of Request: New collection; (4) Purpose: The Bright Tomorrow Lighting Competition was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Subtitle E, Section 655, to encourage development and deployment of highly energy efficient solid-state lighting (SSL) products to replace several of the most common lighting products currently used in the United States. Field assessments contribute to the evaluation of L Prize entries in a wide range of lighting applications.
The field assessments evaluate energy use of the installed product, the lighting system performance compared to the existing technology, and user feedback. The objective of field testing is to obtain installation data and user acceptance, in order to evaluate the product and determine its potential to be declared a winner. Additionally, DOE plans to monitor the impact of the L Prize competition through post-prize monitoring of incentive programs, educational campaigns, and retail promotions. This monitoring will include measuring the number of customers reached, bulbs sold, energy savings, and other tangible benefits.; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 526; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 526; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 115; (8) Response Obligation: Voluntary. (9) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.
42 U.S.C. 17243.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
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:
Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation.
Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate 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 on June 21, 2012, pursuant to sections 201, 206, and 306 of the Federal Power Act; 16 U.S.C. 824, 824(e) and 825 (2010) and Rules 206 and 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission); 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 (2011), Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc., Yampa Valley Electric Association, Inc., Intermountain Rural Electric Association, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against the Public Service Company of Colorado (Respondent), alleging that the 10.25 percent “Return on Equity” assessed by the Respondent in the formula rate is unjust and unreasonable.
The Complainants state that a copy of the Complaint has been served on the contact for the Respondent as listed on the Commission list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the A-Line Abandonment Project (Project) which would include the abandonment of facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Ochiltree, Hansford, Hutchinson, and Carson Counties, Texas; Beaver County, Oklahoma; and Kiowa and Clark Counties, Kansas. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on July 25, 2012. Further details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
Northern proposes to abandon in by sale to DKM Enterprises, LLC (DKM) for salvage about 126 miles of its A-line consisting of two segments of 24-inch-diameter pipeline. One segment (the Skellytown to Spearman A-line) is about 38 miles long and extends from Northern's abandoned Skellytown Station near Skellytown, Carson County, Texas, to Northern's Spearman Compressor Station in Spearman, Ochiltree County, Texas. The second segment (the Beaver to Mullinville A-line) is about 88 miles long and extends from Northern's Beaver Compressor Station near Beaver, Oklahoma, to its Mullinville Compressor Station near Mullinville, Kansas. Activities Northern would conduct related to the
The general locations of the project facilities are shown in the maps in Appendix 1.
Northern proposes abandoning these facilities by sale to DKM and states that all of its abandonment and DKM's salvage activities would be conducted within Northern's existing right-of-way which Northern would retain. Therefore, there would be no new land use requirements.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed abandonment project under these general headings:
• Land use;
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation and wildlife;
• Endangered and threatened species;
• Public safety; and
• Cumulative impact.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through the Commission's eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 4.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations, we are using this notice to solicit the views of the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC, on or before July 25, 2012.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP12-469-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature located on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address:Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street NE., Room 1A,Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project. If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you wish to receive no further mailings
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on June 21, 2012, pursuant to section 210(h) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA),
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On May 10, 2012, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Colorado, filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Plateau Creek Pumped Storage Project to be located on Plateau Creek, near the town of Dolores, Montezuma County, Colorado. The project affects federal lands administered by the Forest Service (San Juan National Forest). All filings submitted pursuant to the original June 6, 2012 notice will continue to be considered and do not need to be resubmitted.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) An upper reservoir, formed by a 130-foot-high by 6,500-foot-long, roller-compacted concrete (RCC) or embankment dam, with a total storage capacity of 8,000 acre-feet and a water surface area of 275 acres at full pool elevation; (2) a lower reservoir, formed by a 270-foot-high by 800-foot-long dam, having a total storage capacity of 9,500 acre-feet and a water surface area of 200 acres at full pool elevation; (3) two 15-foot-diameter steel penstocks consisting of a surface penstock, a vertical shaft, and an inclined tunnel; (4) two 27-foot-diameter tailrace tunnels that would be 850-feet-long; (5) an underground powerhouse containing two reversible pump-turbines totaling 500 megawatts (MW) (2 units × 250 MW) of generating capacity; and (6) a 7-mile-long, 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line that would connect the switchyard with an existing 230 kV interconnection east of the project area. The project's annual
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
The Commission staff is consulting with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Alabama SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission, the Georgia SHPO, the Alabama SHPO, and the Advisory Council would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR section 800.13(e)).
On April 28, 2011, the Commission staff established a restricted service list for the Bartletts Ferry Hydroelectric Project. On June 14, 2012, the Kialegee Tribal Town requested a revision to the restricted service list. The revision is:
“Henry Harjo” is replaced with “Kelly Davis or Representative.”
On June 14 and June 19, 2012, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, respectively, requested to be added to the restricted service list. The restricted service list is supplemented to include:
“Augustine Asbury or Representative, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, P.O. Box 187, Wetumka, OK 74883;”
“Lisa LaRue-Baker, Acting THPO, or Representative, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, P.O. Box 748, Tahlequah, OK 74465.”
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR section 385.2010, provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
The Commission staff is consulting with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer (Alabama SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission, the Alabama SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR section 800.13(e)). On August 30, 2011, the Commission staff established a
On June 21, 2012, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requested a revision to the restricted service list. The revision is: “Terry Cole, THPO” is replaced with “Dr. Ian Thompson, THPO, or Representative”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Determination.
The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the state waters of Vineyard and Nantucket Sounds and the Islands collectively termed Southern Cape Cod.
Ann Rodney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Oceans and Coastal Protection Unit, Five Post Office Square, Suite 100, OEP06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Telephone: (617) 918-1538. Fax number: (617) 918-0538. Email address:
On April 26, 2012, EPA published a notice that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had petitioned the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to determine that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Southern Cape Cod. Eight comments were received on this petition and all endorsed this designation. The response to comments can be obtained using the above contact information.
The petition was filed pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217 and 100-4, for the purpose of declaring these waters a No Discharge Area (NDA).
Section 312(f)(3) states: After the effective date of the initial standards and regulations promulgated under this section, if any State determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the waters within such State require greater environmental protection, such State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters, except that no such prohibition shall apply until the Administrator determines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for such water to which such prohibition would apply.
This Notice of Determination is for the waters of Southern Cape Cod. The NDA boundaries are as follows:
The upper-eastern area of the NDA is bound by the Outer Cape NDA:
The small triangle of Commonwealth waters at the mouth of Buzzards Bay will be bound by the following coordinates along the Federal/State boundary line:
The two temporarily undesignated areas will be bound by the following coordinates:
Area 1:
Area 2:
The boundaries were chosen to maximize the area designated, give larger vessels a temporary window in which to comply with this proposed regulation, and generally represent all navigational waters. The Southern Cape Cod NDA will encompass the state waters of Vineyard and Nantucket Sounds and the Islands.
The information submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts certifies that there are 29 pumpout facilities available to the boating public. The location, contact information, hours of operation, and water depth are provided at the end of this notice.
Based on the examination of the petition and its supporting documentation, and information from site visits conducted by EPA New England staff, EPA has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the area covered under this determination.
This determination is made pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public laws 95-217 and 100-4.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period and listening session.
EPA is announcing a 60-day public comment period and a public listening session for the external review draft human health assessment titled “Toxicological Review of 1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, and 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” (EPA/635/R-11/012A). The draft assessment was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD). EPA is releasing this draft assessment for the purposes of public comment and peer review. This draft assessment is not final as described in EPA's information quality guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views.
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) will convene an expert panel for independent external peer review of the draft assessment. The EPA SAB is a body established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act with a broad mandate to advise the Agency on scientific matters. The public comment period and the SAB peer review are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document. The SAB will schedule one or more public peer review meetings, which will be announced in the
EPA is also announcing a listening session to be held on Wednesday, August 1, 2012, during the public comment period. The purpose of the listening session is to allow all interested parties to present scientific and technical comments on the draft IRIS health assessment to EPA and other interested parties attending the listening session. EPA welcomes the scientific and technical comments that will be provided to the Agency by the listening session participants. The comments will be considered by the Agency as it revises the draft assessment after the independent external peer review.
The public comment period begins, June 29, 2012, and ends August 28, 2012. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by August 28, 2012.
The listening session on the draft IRIS health assessment for 1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, and 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (TMB) will be held on August 1, 2012, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Time, or when the last presentation has been completed. If you would like to make a presentation at the listening session, you should register by July 25, 2012, following the detailed instructions below under
The draft “Toxicological Review of 1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, and 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at
The listening session on the draft assessment of TMB will be held at the EPA offices at Two Potomac Yard (North Building), 7th Floor, Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22202. There are two buildings at Potomac Yard, please be sure you go to Building Two, the North Building. Please note that to gain entrance to this EPA building, attendees must register at
A teleconference line will also be available for registered attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is 866-299-3188 and the access code is 926-378-7897, followed by the pound sign (#). The teleconference line will be activated at 8:45 a.m., and you will be asked to identify yourself and your affiliation at the beginning of the call.
IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database (available on the Internet at
To attend the August 1, 2012, listening session, register by July 25, 2012, by sending an email to
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0459 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All documents in the docket are listed in the
For information on the federal docket, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-9744; or email:
For information on the public listening session, please contact Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-8592; facsimile: 703-347-8689; or email:
If you have questions about the document, contact Allen Davis, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA); telephone: 919-541-3789; facsimile: 919-541-0245; or email:
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPAmake public its comments on EISs issued by other Federalagencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
EPA is seeking agencies to participate in its e-NEPA electronicEIS submission pilot. Participating agencies can fulfill all requirementsfor EIS filing, eliminating the need to submit paper copies to EPAHeadquarters, by filing documents online and providing feedback onthe process. To participate in the pilot, register at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA), Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a meeting of the SAB's Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Committee to discuss SAB recommendations regarding the Agency's 2012 STAA recipients. The SAB meeting will be closed to the public.
The SAB meeting dates are Monday and Tuesday, July 23 and 24, 2012, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The closed SAB meeting will be held at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, South Building, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
Members of the public who wish to obtain further information regarding this announcement may contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer, by telephone: (202) 564-2134 or email at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
Notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Trinity Superfund Site in Cleveland, Ohio, with the following settling party: Standex International Corporation. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $110,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2012.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Catherine Garypie, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard (C-14J), Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-5825. Comments should reference the Trinity Superfund Site in Cleveland, Ohio and EPA Docket No. V-W-12-C-999 and should be addressed to LaDawn Whitehead, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-3713.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Trinity Superfund Site in Cleveland, Ohio, with the following settling party: Standex International Corporation. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $110,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. EPA Records Center, Room 714, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.
Catherine Garypie, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard (C-14J), Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-5825.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for nominations to the Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as members of its Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB). The GLAB will provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator, in her capacity as Chair of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, on matters pertaining to Great Lakes restoration and protection. Vacancies are expected to be filled by September 2012. Sources in addition to this
Nominations must be postmarked by July 30, 2012.
Submit nominations electronically with the subject line “GLAB Nomination 2012” to
Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer, US Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604; email address:
On May 31, 2012, EPA published in the
The GLAB will be composed of approximately 15 members appointed by the EPA Administrator. In selecting members, EPA will consider candidates representing or serving as liaison to a broad range of interests across the Great Lakes, that may include, but are not limited to, environmental groups, business, agricultural groups, youth groups, foundations, environmental justice groups, academia and state, local and tribal governments. Members will be appointed for two year terms and are eligible for reappointment.
The GLAB will meet approximately two times a year. Additionally, members may be asked to participate in teleconference meetings. The average workload for members will be approximately 4 to 6 hours per month. We are unable to provide honoraria or compensation for service on the GLAB. However, you may receive travel and per diem allowances where appropriate and according to applicable federal travel regulations.
• The background and experiences that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the GLAB (e.g., economic, social, cultural, educational background, professional affiliations and other considerations);
• Demonstrated experience with Great Lakes issues;
• Leadership experience in Great Lakes organizations, businesses and workgroups;
• Excellent interpersonal and consensus-building skills;
• Ability to volunteer time to attend approximately two in-person meetings a year, participate in teleconference meetings, attend listening sessions with senior-level federal officials, develop policy recommendations and prepare reports and letters of advice; and
• Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on committees.
• Current contact information for the nominee, including the nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization), current business address, email address and daytime phone number;
• Brief statement describing the nominee's interest in serving on the GLAB;
• Resume and a short biography (no more than two paragraphs) describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including a list of relevant activities and any current or previous service on advisory committees; and
• Letter(s) of recommendation from a third party supporting the nomination. Letter(s) should describe how the nominee's experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the GLAB.
To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus (Bureaus) announce updated data files of census blocks eligible for the Mobility Fund Phase I support to be offered in Auction 901, which is to be held on September 27, 2012.
Short-form applications to participate in Auction 901 are due prior to 6:00 p.m. on July 11, 2012.
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
This is a summary of the
1. The
2. The files for which the Bureaus now announce updates are available via the link for Attachment A Files at
3. Concurrent with the release of
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau) seeks comment on a number of threshold decisions regarding the design of and data inputs to the forward looking cost model, and on other assumptions in the cost models currently in the record.
Comments are due on or before July 9, 2012 and reply comments are due on or before July 23, 2012.
Interested parties may file comments on or before July 9, 2012 and reply comments on or before July 23, 2012. All pleadings are to reference WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 05-337. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ted Burmeister, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7389 or TTY (202) 418-0484.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Public Notice in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337; DA 12-911, released June 8, 2012. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at
1. In the Public Notice (Notice), the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) identifies several significant threshold model design decisions and seeks comment on specific proposals for the design of the model and data inputs to be used. This is not an exhaustive list of such issues, but represents the next step in the open, deliberative process to determine the design of the model the Bureau will ultimately adopt. The Bureau also seeks comment on commenters' identification of additional issues that need to be developed in the record of this proceeding.
2. The Notice first seeks comment on what wireline network technology and design the model should use to calculate costs. This question includes the important threshold matters of whether the model should presume green-field or brown-field deployment and whether the model should estimate the costs of Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) or Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (including Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN)) technology. Closely related is the question of what terminal value to assign to the modeled network—book
3. In addition, to expedite the model development process, the Bureau also initiates comment on data inputs—specifically, on data sources relating to geography and carrier plant. The geographic information systems (GIS) inputs on which this Notice seeks comment include the definitions of existing wire center boundaries and broadband footprints, and the locations of business and residential customers. Plant-related data questions raised in this Notice relate to plant mix (
4. Finally, the Bureau seeks comment on the models submitted by the ABC Coalition and ACS. Specifically, the Bureau asks that commenters identify model design decisions, inputs, or other assumptions included in those models that require further analysis and record development.
5. The Bureau presents and seeks comment on several approaches for addressing each of the model design issues summarized above. The Bureau encourages commenters to address in depth how to address the potential limitations of some approaches or to propose additional alternatives, including hybrid approaches that bring the benefits of multiple methodologies. Similarly, although the Bureau references the models filed by the ABC Coalition and ACS, and encourages commenters to address those models specifically, commenters should not be constrained by the assumptions contained in those models.
6. Commenters should explain in detail why the positions they argue for are preferable to others, supporting their positions with arguments grounded in economic principles, data and analysis. Commenters are encouraged to take a position on each of the issues addressed herein, and explain how those positions, in combination, establish a reasonable approach to modeling and are consistent with the requirements set forth in the
7. The choices of network technology (
8. The Bureau emphasizes that model design choices will not obligate providers to deploy the modeled technology—providers can deploy any technology that meets the obligations laid out in the
9. Consistent with the
10. Several interdependent issues need to be resolved regarding network technology, design, and valuation: (1) How much of the network the model assumes to pre-exist, (2) whether the model assumes the connection to the customer location is wholly fiber or some mixture of fiber and copper wire, and (3) how the model should calculate the value of the network at the end of the modeling period.
11. The first issue is the amount of the modeled network that the model assumes will be newly built. Because the two approaches to resolving this embedded issue are aligned with either the green-field or brown-field approach, this Notice discusses the issues together.
12. One approach (“green-field”) is to model costs assuming that the entire network, from the local central office to each end-user location, is newly built. The network is assumed to be built in its entirety, typically along roads or other rights of way. A green-field model may retain central offices in their existing locations and hold wire center boundaries constant (scorched node). This is the approach taken in the ABC Coalition model.
13. Another approach (brown-field) is to assume that only a part of the network will be built, and to therefore model only the costs associated with those network upgrades. This approach relies on existing assets as part of the modeled network. Some parts of the network are upgraded as necessary to achieve the necessary levels of connectivity. Other existing network assets, typically twisted-pair copper, are retained because, with the other upgrades, they provide sufficient connectivity.
14. The second issue is whether the Bureau should model the costs associated with fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) technology, or with technology that relies in part on twisted-pair copper like digital subscriber line (DSL) or fiber to the node (FTTN). The choice of what technology to model does not obligate providers to deploy that technology. The requirements laid out in the
15. As the name suggests, in an FTTP network, fiber optic cables are run from the central office to each end-user location. This example assumes the use
16. A DSL network that relies on the twisted-pair infrastructure includes both fiber-optic and twisted-pair copper connections. DSL Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs) are placed so that the longest copper loop between the DSLAM and end-user location is shorter than some maximum length like 5,000 or 12,000 feet, as necessary to achieve the modeled level of connectivity. These DSLAMs are presumed to be connected to the central office by fiber optic cable. The ABC Coalition model estimates the cost of a DSL network.
17. The third issue is how the model should calculate the terminal value of the network at the end of the modeling period.
18. Some network assets are particularly long-lived, with accounting lifetimes of 20 or more years, and economic lifetimes that are even longer (
19. The
20. The extent to which the model includes costs that reflect the value of longer-lived assets is likely to be a large driver of support amounts. A green-field FTTP deployment would likely have significant commercial value after five years, even in high-cost areas, given that it scales more readily to higher-speed services than DSL and would have many years of depreciable life (and possibly even more actual) remaining. The commercial value and remaining life of a brown-field DSL deployment is less clear.
21.
22.
23.
24. The decisions regarding network technology, design, and terminal value together define a possible model approach. As discussed below, the Bureau proposes two approaches: green-field FTTP paired with book value; or brown-field DSL paired with zero value. The Bureau also seeks comment on the ABC Coalition's proposal to use a green-field DSL model. The Bureau seeks public input on its analysis as set forth below.
25. To the extent that parties support alternative model designs not discussed here, including other variants of networks that use both fiber- and copper-based connections, such as hybrid-fiber coax (HFC) networks, the Bureau asks that the parties use their comments to justify those alternatives. The parties should address how their favored alternatives meet the criteria set forth above—precision, accuracy, simplicity, accessibility, administrative feasibility, and the cost of implementation—as well as any other criteria the parties believe relevant to the choice of model designs.
26.
27. However, a green-field FTTP model would also make annual cost and support levels highly dependent on the terminal value, because the explicit modeling period is much shorter than the lifetime of many of the assets in the model. Given the degree of uncertainty associated with estimating commercial value, it may be inappropriate to use commercial value to determine the terminal value. However, because the commercial value is likely to be significant, using zero terminal value with the green-field FTTP approach would likely provide an excessive benefit. The Bureau therefore proposes to use book value as the terminal value, if a green-field FTTP approach is adopted.
28. A green-field FTTP approach may have drawbacks as well. Relative to a brown-field model, a green-field model using any technology is likely to calculate higher costs and require higher support levels per location (
29.
30. There are likely to be disadvantages associated with a brown-field DSL approach, however. The ability of a given loop length to deliver desired speed depends on age and quality of existing plant, and on the gauge of the copper wires. It is unclear if the necessary data for existing copper deployments are available. As a result, the brown-field approach may require modeling existing networks and assets or making sweeping generalizations about average conditions. In addition, increasing offered broadband speed (
31. The Bureau also notes that the use of a brown-field model makes the availability of some data sets more important (
32. The brown-field DSL model also would need to capture costs associated with exhaust of capacity in existing aggregation facilities that is driven by the addition of new served locations. Although the brown-field DSL approach likely results in lower costs and support per location, this is dependent on terminal value calculation. Under the brown-field DSL approach, the Bureau proposes that the model would assume that, at the end of the modeling period, assets would have zero value. A DSL network with only limited upgrades could have small commercial value, especially if another service provider receives support under a program subsequent to CAF Phase II, but estimating actual commercial value is difficult and uncertain. For that reason, using a terminal value of zero could reasonably approximate the value of the network without the added complexity of estimating commercial value. This approach would ensure that calculated costs reflect the entire cost of network upgrades, including possible impairment of value in an unfavorable commercial environment. The Bureau seeks comment on this analysis.
33.
34. There appear to be significant disadvantages of a green-field DSL approach. First, it is only forward looking from the perspective of decisions made a decade or more in the past (
35. The Commission concluded in the
36. Most costs in a network are shared costs. For example, feeder cabling is shared among all end-users served by that feeder; even cabling in the distribution plant is often shared among multiple end user locations. The method used to attribute the costs of shared plant to individual end users or to census block or smaller areas will affect the relative cost of serving different areas.
37. The Bureau thus must determine how to estimate network costs consistent with the requirement in the
38. A simplified example of this issue: In a given area served by a single central office, most of the homes served are clustered together in a small area. These homes are served by an unsubsidized cable company and are in a census block (or smaller area) that is ineligible for CAF support. Three remaining homes are in a different census block outside the footprint of the
39.
40.
41. Modeling the costs associated with a complete network (
42. Second, in the
43. For these reasons, the Bureau proposes to model the entire network and assign shared costs between eligible and ineligible areas to determine support amounts. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and on its analysis of the relative attributes of each alternative.
44. A related question is how to allocate costs consistent with the requirement in the
45.
46. An example of how this calculation would be performed: Assume a service area that includes two areas, X and Y. Area X represents an area (
47. Two related issues complicate this scenario. The Bureau needs to (1) determine how to maximize the number of locations served with the $1.8 billion budget, and (2) determine the threshold for which locations will be served by the Remote Areas Fund designed to ensure service to the most costly locations. As a result, the model needs to determine not just the cost of a single incremental addition to the network, but the cost of building out many areas—when the cost of each area can affect the cost of the others.
48. A slightly more complicated example highlights the challenges associated with such a calculation. In addition to the commercially viable Area X, there are three areas that are eligible for support: A, B and C. In this simplified example, those three areas hold individual homes, but they could also be groups of homes.
49. The cost of serving each of these areas depends in part on whether the other areas are served. For example, if a provider builds network to area A, then the cost for building to areas B and C could be lower; similarly if network is built to area B, the cost to serve area C could be lower. Determining the cost of building each area then depends on what other areas eventually get service. Therefore a model would need to calculate cost (X), cost (X + A), cost (X + B), cost (X + C), cost (X + A + B), cost (X + A + C), cost (X + B + C) and cost (X + A + B + C). After the Bureau determines which areas are to be included (i.e., which areas are eligible for support instead of being moved into the Remote Area Fund), then calculating the incremental costs of those areas would be straightforward. Note that this method effectively averages the costs of areas are included: In the above example, determining the cost (A + B) by calculating the cost (X + A + B) and subtracting cost (X) averages the cost of areas A and B together.
50. The subtraction methodology may be a computationally difficult method of allocating costs. There are hundreds of thousands of unserved census blocks in the country, meaning a multiple of that many permutations; this, in turn, will require many more model runs than an allocation approach. In addition, the approach presumes the Bureau has determined which areas are sufficiently
51.
52. The Bureau proposes to use a subtractive approach, provided that a computationally tractable method can be found, because the subtractive approach ensures that only the costs that would not otherwise be incurred are attributed to each area, which the Bureau believes provides the best estimate of the economic costs of serving an area. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
53. The main advantage of the pro-rata or other formula approach is that it involves straightforward calculations without the computational complexity of the subtraction approach. However, a pro-rata or other formula-based approach may not estimate the economic costs of serving any area with a high degree of accuracy. Moreover, it may not capture that an area is commercially viable without a subsidy (
54. The Bureau seeks comment on its proposal and analysis of alternatives. With respect to the pro rata or formula approach, the Bureau seeks comment on which formula or method of allocating costs could or should be used and the advantages or disadvantages of each.
55. High-cost areas are likely to include a mix of both served and unserved locations. Some locations in areas with high long-run incremental costs may already have broadband because they had previously been subject to other forms of regulation (such as rate-of-return regulation) that compensated carriers' costs on a different basis, because they had received legacy high-cost support, or because the existence of commercially viable service areas nearby reduced the incremental cost of providing broadband such that there was a business case to invest. Should the model include and calculate support for high-cost areas that are already served?
56.
57.
58. The Bureau proposes to include areas that already are served by broadband in cost and support calculations. The Bureau seeks comment on its analysis on this issue.
59. In the
60. With regard to the cost benchmark, the Commission stated that it would use the model “to identify those census blocks where the cost of service is likely to be higher than can be supported through reasonable end-user rates alone.” The ABC plan proponents proposed a benchmark of $80 per loop per month.
61. With regard to the RAF threshold, the Commission also concluded that “a small number of extremely high-cost census blocks that should receive funding specifically set aside for remote and extremely high-cost areas * * * rather than receiving CAF Phase II support.” The Commission found that excluding these extremely high-cost areas was consistent with its “recognition that the very small percentage of households that are most expensive to serve via terrestrial technology represent a disproportionate share of the cost of serving currently unserved areas.” The Commission exempted those areas from the broadband service requirements associated with the CAF and set aside at least $100 million to serve those areas through alternative technologies subject
62. The Bureau seeks comment on how best to determine the low-end threshold for determining which census blocks should receive support and the extremely high cost threshold to identify the areas eligible for the Remote Area Fund.
63. In setting these thresholds, the Bureau is mindful of certain principles established by the Commission in the
64. Given these principles, the Bureau could first establish the extremely high-cost threshold by taking into consideration the Commission's anticipation that fewer than one percent of American homes would be above the threshold and the size of the RAF. The Bureau could then calculate how far below the extremely high-cost benchmark the $1.8 billion CAF Phase II budget could extend, the result being the cost benchmark. Alternatively, the Bureau could first determine the cost benchmark using the principle that it should identify places where the cost of service exceed reasonable end user rates alone, and then calculate the extremely high-cost benchmark based on the $1.8 billion CAF Phase II budget. Under this alternative the Bureau would need to ensure that the resulting extremely high-cost benchmark did not cause more than one percent of American households to be covered by the RAF or unduly increase the size of the RAF.
65. As suggested by the State Members of the Joint Board, another possibility is to establish the extremely high-cost threshold at a level approximately the same as the price of satellite broadband service. Also, the ABC plan proposed to limit support to no more than $176 per line per month which, given the $80 cost benchmark it proposed, would effectively set the threshold for extremely high-cost areas at $256 per line per month.
66. The Bureau seeks comment on these alternative methods of calculating the CAF Phase II cost benchmark and the extremely high-cost threshold.
67. In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on seven data source issues. Four relate to geographic information systems (GIS) data: wire center boundaries, boundaries of existing broadband footprints, business locations, and consumer locations. The other three issues relate to carrier plant: the outside plant mix for individual carriers, the age of the carriers' plant, and the gauge of the carriers' copper wire plant. The Bureau also seeks comment regarding methods of validating data inputs generally.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72. The commercial data approach should be more accurate than efficient routing. Efficient routing would underestimate costs in some areas because it would model network deployments that are significantly different from what providers would actually implement given the constraints of existing wire centers. Efficient routing would also be inconsistent with both a scorched node approach to a green-field model and a brown-field model.
73. Although commercial data may not achieve as high a degree of accuracy as a newly developed data set, developing a data source will likely require a significant amount of time. Also, the Bureau notes that the footprints of providers eligible for CAF Phase II support are quite large, so any small error is likely to average out. Moreover, any overstatement of footprint by including uninhabited areas will not affect costs for a model that relies on demographic information.
74. A hybrid approach involving a commercial data source supplemented by data collected from service providers or efficient routing may also make sense or prove necessary in some areas that are not covered by those sources.
75. The Bureau proposes to use wire center boundaries obtained through a new data collection as described above, or in the alternative, commercial datasets, such as TeleAtlas, if the data collection can not be completed in time for the model development process. The Bureau seeks comment on the relative merits of each alternative.
76.
77.
78.
79. The Bureau does not propose a particular data source for existing broadband footprints at this time but seeks comment on each alternative and the Bureau's analysis of the relative attributes of each.
80.
81.
82.
83. The Bureau proposes to use government data for business locations and seeks comment on its analysis of the alternatives.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88. The Bureau proposes to use a commercial data set for customer locations and seeks comment on its analysis of the relative merits of each alternative.
89.
90.
91.
92. The Bureau proposes to use provider-submitted data for plant-mix data and seeks comment on its analysis. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on how best to validate provider-submitted data.
93.
94.
95.
96. The Bureau seeks comment on these alternatives and its analysis of the relative attributes of each.
97.
98.
99.
100. The Bureau seeks comment on these alternatives and its analysis of the relative attributes of each.
101.
102.
103. In addition to the comment sought above on particular design decisions and data sources used in the models in the record, the Bureau also seeks comment on the ABC Plan's CQBAT model and the ACS model in light of the established transparency standard. Specifically, the Bureau asks parties to identify any issues of availability that the Bureau should address. The Bureau notes that at least 15 parties have gained access to the models in the record through the protective order process. The Bureau asks parties to identify outstanding questions relating to the verifiability of the underlying data, the reasonableness of engineering or economic assumptions, the reasonableness of model design decisions and choices of data sources additional to those identified here, and the plausibility of outputs on which the Bureau should seek further information for the record, either from the parties that submitted the models or from other interested parties through additional comment, workshops, or other record development processes.
104. This document contains proposed new information collection requirements. The Bureau, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Bureau seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
105. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Bureau has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. Written comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
106. The Notice seeks comment on a variety of issues relating to the design of a model to estimate the forward-looking economic costs of providing broadband to high-cost areas. The model will be to calculate support levels to be provided to price cap carriers and their affiliates that accept their right of first refusal and deploy services consistent with the obligations set forth in the
107. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Notice is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and 706, and §§ 1.1 and 1.1421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421.
108. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “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 SBA.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
114.
115.
116.
117.
118. 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 FNPRM.
119. 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.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125. In this Notice, the Commission seeks public comment on model design and input issues associated with a forward-looking economic cost model to be used to determine support for price cap carriers and their affiliates pursuant to Phase II of the Connect America Fund. The Notice seeks comment on possible data inputs that would require reporting by small entities. Specifically, the Notice seeks comment on the use of wire center boundaries based on data collected from local exchange carriers, the use of residential location data collected from service providers, and the use of data from local exchange carriers regarding their mix of aerial, underground and buried plant, the age of existing plant, and the gauge of existing twisted-pair copper plant.
126. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
127. The Notice seeks comment on a number of model design and inputs questions. The model design issues are not anticipated to have a significant economic impact on small entities insofar as the results produce high-cost support amounts for price cap carriers and their affiliates that accept the right of first refusal pursuant to CAF Phase II. This is primarily because most (and perhaps all) of the affected carriers are not small entities. Moreover, the choice of alternatives discussed is not anticipated to systematically increase or decrease support for any particular group of entities and therefore any significant economic impact cannot necessarily be minimized through alternatives.
128. In one respect, the model design may have a significant economic impact on small entities. The Notice seeks comment on using the model to set the “extremely high-cost” threshold, which would identify “remote areas.” Such areas will be included in the Remote Areas Fund if they are in a price cap service territory, and would thus be subject an alternative support mechanism that could include small entities. The definition of such areas could also affect the service obligations of rate-of-return carriers, many of which are small entities. The Bureau does not propose a specific methodology for establishing the extremely high-cost threshold, but seeks broad comment on how to do so. The Bureau anticipates that it will consider alternatives, including those that would minimize the significant economic impact on small entities.
129. None.
130.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325,
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
131.
132. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, 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 the renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collection described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2012.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper, at the FDIC address above.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 26, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 26, 2012.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 26, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
In addition, Carrollton Bank will merge with Bay Bank, FSB, Lutherville, Maryland, with Bay Bank, FSB, as the surviving entity.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice advises of the cause and effect of termination of Direct Endorsement (DE) Approval taken by HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) against HUD-approved mortgagees through the FHA Credit Watch Termination Initiative. This notice includes a list of mortgagees which have had their DE Approval terminated.
The Quality Assurance Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2830 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access that number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
HUD has the authority to address deficiencies in the performance of lenders' loans as provided in HUD's mortgagee approval regulations at 24 CFR 202.3. On May 17, 1999, HUD published a notice (64 FR 26769), on its procedures for terminating Origination Approval Agreements with FHA lenders and placement of FHA lenders on Credit Watch status (an evaluation period). In the May 17, 1999 notice, HUD advised that it would publish in the
Loans that closed or were approved before the Termination became effective may be submitted for insurance endorsement. Approved loans are those already underwritten and approved by a DE underwriter, and cases covered by a firm commitment issued by HUD. Cases at earlier stages of processing cannot be submitted for insurance by the terminated mortgagee; however, the cases may be transferred for completion of processing and underwriting to another mortgagee with DE Approval in that area. Mortgagees are obligated to continue to pay existing insurance premiums and meet all other obligations associated with insured mortgages.
A terminated mortgagee may apply for reinstatement of the DE Approval if the DE Approval for the affected area or areas has been terminated for at least six months and the mortgagee continues to be an approved mortgagee meeting the requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 202.7, 202.10 and 202.12. The mortgagee's application for reinstatement must be in a format prescribed by the Secretary and signed by the mortgagee. In addition, the application must be accompanied by an independent analysis of the terminated office's operations as well as its mortgage production, specifically including the FHA-insured mortgages cited in its termination notice. This independent analysis shall identify the underlying cause for the mortgagee's high default and claim rate. The analysis must be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to perform audits under Government Auditing Standards as provided by the Government Accountability Office. The mortgagee must also submit a written corrective action plan to address each of the issues identified in the CPA's report, along with evidence that the plan has been implemented. The application for a new Agreement should be in the form of a letter, accompanied by the CPA's report and corrective action plan. The request should be sent to the Director, Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410-8000 or by courier to 490 L'Enfant Plaza, East SW., Suite 3214, Washington, DC 20024-8000.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice advises of the cause and effect of termination of Origination Approval Agreements taken by HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) against HUD-approved mortgagees through the FHA Credit Watch Termination Initiative. This notice includes a list of mortgagees which have had their Origination Approval Agreements terminated.
The Quality Assurance Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2830 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access that number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
HUD has the authority to address deficiencies in the performance of lenders' loans as provided in HUD's mortgagee approval regulations at 24 CFR 202.3. On May 17, 1999 HUD published a notice (64 FR 26769), on its procedures for terminating Origination Approval Agreements with FHA lenders and placement of FHA lenders on Credit Watch status (an evaluation period). In the May 17, 1999 notice, HUD advised that it would publish in the
Loans that closed or were approved before the termination became effective may be submitted for insurance endorsement. Approved loans are those already underwritten and approved by a DE underwriter, and cases covered by a firm commitment issued by HUD. Cases at earlier stages of processing cannot be submitted for insurance by the terminated branch; however, they may be transferred for completion of processing and underwriting to another FHA-insured mortgagee with direct endorsement approval for the area covered by the termination. Mortgagees are obligated to continue to pay existing insurance premiums and meet all other obligations associated with insured mortgages.
A terminated mortgagee may apply for reinstatement of the Origination Approval Agreement if the approval for the affected branch or branches has been terminated for at least six months and the mortgagee continues to be an approved mortgagee meeting the requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 202.7, 202.8 and 202.12. However, Mortgagee Letter 2010-20 and Final Rule 5356-F-02 at 24 CFR part 202 eliminates FHA approval for loan correspondents after December 31, 2010. Therefore, HUD will not accept requests for reinstatement from loan correspondents after that date. The mortgagee's application for reinstatement must be in a format prescribed by the Secretary and signed by the mortgagee. In addition, the application must be accompanied by an independent analysis of the terminated office's operations as well as its mortgage production, specifically including the FHA-insured mortgages cited in its termination notice. This independent analysis shall identify the underlying cause for the mortgagee's high default and claim rate. The analysis must be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to perform audits under Government Auditing Standards as provided by the Government Accountability Office. The mortgagee must also submit a written corrective action plan to address each of the issues identified in the CPA's report, along with evidence that the plan has been implemented. The application for a new Agreement should be in the form of a letter, accompanied by the CPA's report and corrective action plan. The request should be sent to the Director, Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410-8000 or by courier to 490 L'Enfant Plaza, East SW., Suite 3214, Washington, DC 20024-8000.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Buckeye Wind, LLC (applicant), for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for its Buckeye Wind Power Project (project). If approved, the ITP would be for a 30-year period and would authorize the incidental take of an endangered species, the Indiana bat. The applicant has prepared a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that describes the actions and measures the applicant would implement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate incidental take of the Indiana bat. The ITP application also includes a draft implementing agreement (IA). We also announce the availability of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that has been prepared in response to the permit application in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We request public comment on the application and associated documents.
•
•
•
•
•
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on
Megan Seymour, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ohio Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230; 614-416-8993, extension 16; or Rick Amidon, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services, Midwest Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd., West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; 612-713-5164.
We have received an application from Buckeye Wind, LLC, for an incidental take permit (TE66315A) under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant has prepared a draft HCP to cover the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the project. The project consists of a wind-powered electric generation facility located in an approximately 80,051-acre area (the action area) located in portions of Union, Wayne, Urbana, Salem, Rush, and Goshen Townships, in Champaign County, Ohio. The draft HCP describes the following: (1) Biological goals and objectives of the HCP; (2) the covered activities; (3) permit duration; (4) permit area; (5) alternatives to the taking that were considered; (5) public participation; (6) life history of the Indiana bat; (6) a quantification of the take for which authorization is requested; (7) an assessment of direct and indirect effects of the taking on the Indiana bat within the action area and within the Midwest Recovery Unit (as delineated in the 2007 Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan, USFWS); (8) a conservation program consisting of avoidance and minimization measures, mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management; (9) funding for the HCP; (10) procedures to deal with changed and unforeseen circumstances; and (11) methods for ITP amendments.
In addition to the draft HCP, the applicant has prepared an Implementing Agreement (IA) to document the responsibilities of the parties. The USFWS invites comment on the IA as well as the applicant's HCP.
Under the NEPA (43 U.S.C. 4321
1. Determine the impacts and formulate alternatives for an EIS related to:
a. Issuance of an ITP to the applicant for the take of the Indiana bat, and
b. Implementation of the associated HCP; and
2. Evaluate the application for ITP issuance, including the HCP, which provides measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of the proposed incidental take of Indiana bat.
Buckeye Wind, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of EverPower Wind Holdings, Inc. (EverPower).
The project has been in the planning and development phase since 2006. Indiana bats were discovered in and around the Buckeye Wind action area during pre-construction wildlife surveys in 2008 and 2009. Because wind power projects across the eastern United States have been documented to cause mortality of bats in general, and Indiana bats specifically, Buckeye Wind determined it was appropriate to develop an HCP and apply for an ITP to authorize the potential incidental take of Indiana bats from construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the project. The HCP was developed by Buckeye Wind and their consultants, in coordination with the Service.
The HCP provides a detailed conservation plan to ensure that the incidental take caused by the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the covered species in the action area or in the recovery unit, and provides mitigation to fully offset the impact of the taking. Further, the HCP provides a long-term monitoring and adaptive management strategy to ensure that the ITP terms are satisfied, and to account for changed and unforeseen circumstances.
In accordance with NEPA, the Service has prepared an EIS to analyze the impacts to the human environment that would occur if the requested ITP were issued and the associated HCP were implemented.
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “taking” of threatened and endangered species. However, provided certain criteria are met, the Service is authorized to issue permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for take of federally listed species when, among other things, such a taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect endangered and threatened species, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Our implementing regulations define “harm” as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife, and such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Harass, as defined, means “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).
The HCP analyzes, and the ITP would cover, take from harassment, harm, and killing of bats due to the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning associated with the project. If issued, the ITP would authorize incidental take consistent with the applicant's HCP and the permit. To issue the ITP, the Service must find that Buckeye Wind's application, including its HCP, satisfies the criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and the Service's implementing regulations at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.22. If the ITP is issued, the applicant would receive assurances under the Service's No Surprises policy, as codified at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5).
Buckeye Wind proposes to construct and operate a maximum of 100 wind turbines and associated facilities (described below) for a period of 30 years in eastern Champaign County, Ohio. The project will consist of wind turbines, associated access roads, an underground and aboveground electrical collector system, a substation for connection of the wind turbines to the local transmission system, four permanent meteorological towers, and an operations and maintenance building. In addition, up to four temporary construction staging areas
While approximately 80,051 acres are located within the Buckeye Wind action area, a relatively small portion of that land, approximately 0.16 percent (129.8 acres), will be permanently occupied by the project facilities. Beyond the approximately 129 acres of occupied area, as described in Section 2.2 of the HCP, the project will not impact or change the existing land use.
The draft HCP describes the impacts of take associated with Buckeye Wind's activities and includes measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of incidental take on the Indiana bat. Buckeye Wind will be mitigating for take and associated impacts through permanent preservation, enhancement, and restoration of suitable Indiana bat habitat within 7 miles of a Priority 2 Indiana bat hibernaculum (USFWS, 2007, Draft Indiana Bat Recovery Plan) in Ohio. Mitigation will occur on private lands and will be permanently protected by a conservation easement held by a third-party conservation organization. Section 6.3 of the HCP describes the details of compensatory mitigation and its implementation. The HCP also includes numerous avoidance and minimization measures, as described in sections 6.1 through 6.2, as well as adaptive management, as described in section 6.5, which will limit the take of the Indiana bat.
The Service is soliciting information regarding the adequacy of the HCP to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor the proposed incidental take of the covered species and to provide for adaptive management. In compliance with section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)), the Service is making the ITP application materials available for public review and comment as described above.
We invite comments and suggestions from all interested parties on the draft documents associated with the ITP application (HCP, HCP Appendices, and IA), and request that comments be as specific as possible. In particular, we request information and comments on the following topics:
1. Whether adaptive management and monitoring provisions in the Proposed Action alternative are sufficient;
2. Any threats to the covered species that may influence its population over the life of the ITP that are not addressed in the HCP or EIS;
3. Any new information on white-nose syndrome effects on the covered species;
4. Whether the models and model inputs used to estimate risk to the covered species are appropriate; and
5. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the Indiana bat.
The draft EIS contains an analysis of four alternatives: (1) No Action (no permit issuance); (2) Proposed Action—Modified Operations Alternative, including implementation of the HCP and Issuance of a 30-year ITP; (3) Maximally Restricted Operations Alternative, without an HCP or ITP; and (4) Minimally Restricted Operations Alternative and Issuance of a 30-year ITP. The draft EIS considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives, including any measures under the Proposed Action alternative intended to minimize and mitigate such impacts. The draft EIS also identifies additional alternatives that were considered but were eliminated from consideration as detailed in Section 2.3 of the EIS.
The Service invites comments and suggestions from all interested parties on the content of the draft EIS. In particular, information and comments regarding the following topics are requested:
1. The direct, indirect, or cumulative effects that implementation of any alternative could have on the human environment;
2. Whether or not the significance of the impact on various aspects of the human environment has been adequately analyzed; and
3. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the human environment.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as documents associated with the notice, will be available for public inspection on
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as the lead Federal agency, with the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin (Tribe), the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), the City of Kenosha, and Kenosha County, as cooperating agencies, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed approval of a 223-acre fee-to-trust transfer and the construction of a casino-hotel complex. This notice also announces the FEIS is now available for public review. Hard copies are available upon request or may be found at the addresses indicted in the
The Record of Decision on the proposed action will be issued no sooner than 30 days after the release of the FEIS. Thus, any comments on the FEIS must arrive at the addresses indicated below by July 30, 2012.
You may request a copy of the FEIS, by contacting Scott Doig, Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, Midwest Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 5600 West American Boulevard, Suite 500, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437, telephone (612) 725-4514, fax (612) 713-4401.
Scott Doig, Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, Midwest Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 5600 West American Boulevard, Suite 500, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437, telephone (612) 725-4514, fax (612) 713-4401.
The Tribe has asked the BIA to take 223 acres of land into trust on behalf of the Tribe, on which the Tribe proposes to develop a casino-hotel complex. The proposed project is located at the site of the existing Dairyland Greyhound Park, at 5522-104th Ave., Kenosha, Wisconsin 53144. The property is approximately one half mile east of Interstate 94, and approximately 35 miles south of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The BIA serves as lead agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Tribe, the NIGC, the City of Kenosha, and Kenosha County, as entities having jurisdiction and special expertise relevant to potentially affected resources, are acting as cooperating agencies.
The project design includes taking the 223-acre Dairyland Greyhound Park property into trust for the Tribe, and the development of a casino-hotel complex, while potentially retaining the current greyhound racetrack, structure, concourse and kennel facilities. Future development includes a water park, a second hotel, and a recreational vehicle park. Interim Class III gaming would be conducted inside the existing clubhouse until the new casino is built. The FEIS considers a range of project alternatives, including: (1) Preferred casino-hotel complex; (2) reduced intensity; (3) off-site expansion of existing Keshena facilities; (4) hotel-conference center/recreational development; and (5) no action. Environmental issues addressed in the FEIS include land and water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, socioeconomic conditions, transportation and circulation, land use, public services, noise, hazardous materials, visual resources, environmental justice, cumulative effects, indirect effects and mitigation.
The BIA has afforded other government agencies and the public opportunity to participate in the preparation of this FEIS. The BIA published a Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed action in the
This notice is published pursuant to Sec. 1503.1 of the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500 through 1508) and Sec. 46.305 of the Department of Interior Regulations (43 CFR part 46), implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the KRoad Moapa Solar Facility located in Clark County, Nevada. The Secretary of the Interior approved the ROD on June 21, 2012, which constitutes the final decision of the Department of the Interior.
Copies of the ROD are available upon request from the BLM Southern Nevada District Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130, or via the Internet at the following Web site:
Gregory Helseth, Renewable Energy Project Manager; telephone: (702) 515-5173; mailing address: BLM Southern Nevada District Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130; or email:
The applicant, KRoad Moapa Solar, LLC, (KRoad) filed two right-of-way (ROW) applications to construct a 500 kV transmission line, NVN-89176, as well as an access road, NVN-91072, on BLM administered lands as ancillary facilities for a 350 megawatt (MW) solar generation facility on the Moapa River Indian Reservation (Reservation). The BLM was a cooperating agency with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on the KRoad Moapa Solar Facility. The purpose of the project is to provide access to the transmission grid via the Crystal Substation; to supply power to the Moapa Travel Plaza and a water line to the solar energy facility.
The BLM's purpose and need for the proposed Federal action responds to KRoad's application for an up to 500 kV
The Final EIS analyzed three alternatives: The Proposed Action, Alternative I; Reduced Solar Facility Footprint and Alternative 500kV Transmission line; and the No Action Alternative. These alternatives were shaped in part by comments received from the public and internal BLM, BIA, and Tribal review.
The BLM Proposed Action (Selected Alternative) includes an up to 500kV transmission line ROW and parallel access road. The transmission line is approximately 5.5 miles long, with five miles being within the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians reservation (Pub. L. 96-491) in a BLM administered utility corridor, and the remaining half mile on BLM lands. The transmission line ROW would be approximately 5.5 miles long by 150 feet wide and encompass approximately 100 acres. The access road ROW will be within the transmission line ROW foot print and will be approximately 16-24 feet wide and approximately 5.5 miles long. The transmission line and access road provide access to the Crystal substation operated by NV Energy.
The No Action Alternative assumed the BLM ROW's would not be issued.
The NOA (77 FR 15750) for the Final EIS, was published in the
The BLM and the BIA received two letters as a result of the NOA. The BLM and the BIA determined that there were no significant new information presented in the letters that would require reissuance of the Draft or Final EIS. A final response comment table is attached to the ROD as (Attachment B). Because the Record of Decision was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, it is not subject to administrative appeal (43 CFR 4.410(a)(3)).
40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Kern County, California, have prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Draft California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan Amendment (PA) for the Alta East Wind Project (AEWP), and by this notice the BLM is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS/EIR/PA within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the AEWP by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR/PA are available in the California Desert District Office at the above address, in the BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S. Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, California 93555, and on the BLM Web site:
For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Jeffery Childers, telephone 951 697-5308; address BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553-9046; email
Alta Windpower Development, LLC (AWD) has requested a right-of-way (ROW) authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission the AEWP. The Project would be located on about 3,200 acres on the north and south sides of State Route 58 in southeastern Kern County, California. The project area is approximately 3 miles northwest of the town of Mojave and approximately 11 miles east of the city of Tehachapi. The proposed project would include up to 106 wind turbines, access roads, energy collection lines, and ancillary facilities on 3,200 acres, of which 2,083 acres are on public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM and 1,117 acres are on private land under the jurisdiction of Kern County. The Project could produce up to 318 Megawatts (mW).
The BLM's purpose and need for the AEWP is to respond to AWD's application for a ROW grant to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a wind energy facility on public lands in compliance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable Federal laws. The BLM will decide whether to grant, grant with modification, or deny a ROW to AWD for the proposed AEWP. The BLM is also proposing to amend the CDCA Plan by designating the project area as either available or unavailable for wind energy projects. The CDCA Plan (1980, as amended), while recognizing the potential compatibility of wind energy generation facilities with other uses on public lands, requires that all sites proposed for power generation or transmission not already identified in the Plan be considered through the plan amendment process. If the BLM decides to grant a ROW for this project, the CDCA Plan would be amended as required.
In addition to the proposed action and a no action alternative, the BLM is analyzing a reconfigured site layout alternative with up to 106 turbines, an alternative that would allow up to 97 turbines, and an alternative that would allow up to 87 turbines. The Draft EIS/EIR/PA also analyzes two no-project alternatives that would deny a ROW for the project but amend the CDCA Plan to find the project area either (1) available for future wind energy generation projects; or (2) unavailable for future wind energy generation projects.
The Draft EIS/EIR/PA evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed AEWP on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources including Golden Eagles and California Condors, special status species, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, traffic, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cumulative effects, and areas with high potential for renewable energy development.
A Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS/EIR/PA for the AEWP was published in the
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review at the above address during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Front Range Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held on August 8, 2012, from 9:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Bank of the West, 146 G. Street, Salida, Colorado 81201.
Denise Adamic, Front Range RAC Coordinator, BLM Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 E. Main St., Cañon City, CO 81212. Phone: (719) 269-8553. Email:
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM Front Range District, which includes the Royal Gorge Field Office (RGFO) and the San Luis Valley Field Office. Planned topics of discussion items include: Field Manager updates as well as recreation and resource management issues at the Cache Creek Placer Mining Area. There will be an afternoon field trip to Cache Creek. The public is encouraged to make oral comments to the Council at 9:45 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. Summary minutes for the RAC meetings will be maintained in the RGFO and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. Previous meeting minutes and agendas are available at:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Winter Use Plan, Yellowstone National Park.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) for a Winter Use Plan for Yellowstone National Park, located in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
The National Park Service will accept comments from the public for 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability. The NPS intends to hold public meetings in Jackson, WY on July 16, 2012; West Yellowstone, MT on July 17, 2012; Bozeman, MT on July 18, 2012; and Cody, WY on July 19, 2012. Additional details regarding the public meeting locations and times can be found at
More information regarding Yellowstone in the winter, including educational materials and a detailed history of winter use in Yellowstone, is available at
Information will be available for public review and comment online at
Wade Vagias, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190, (307) 344-2035.
Four alternatives are considered in the Draft SEIS. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would not permit public over-snow vehicle (OSV) use in Yellowstone but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 1 has been identified as the environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative 2
Alternative 4 is the NPS preferred alternative. This alternative would manage OSV use by transportation events. A total of 110 transportation events would be allowed in the park each day. A transportation event would initially equal one snowcoach or one group of snowmobiles (average of 7 snowmobiles per group, averaged over the winter use season; groups could not exceed a maximum of 10 snowmobiles). Operators would decide whether to use their daily allocation of transportation events for snowmobiles or snowcoaches, but no more than 50 daily transportation events could come from snowmobiles. OSV use would continue to be 100 percent guided, with four transportation events per day (one per gate) of up to 5 snowmobiles each allocated for non-commercially guided access. BAT requirements for snowmobiles would remain the same as the BAT requirements in the 2011/2012 interim regulation until the 2017/2018 winter season, at which time additional sound and air emission requirements would be implemented. BAT requirements for snowcoaches would also be implemented beginning in the 2017/2018 season. If OSVs meet additional established standards for air and sound emissions beyond those required for BAT, the group size of snowmobiles would be allowed to increase from an average of 7 to an average of 8 per transportation event, and snowcoaches would be allowed to increase from one to two snowcoaches per transportation event. These changes would allow for an increase in visitation while reducing transportation-generated noise and air impacts. Sylvan Pass would remain open.
If you wish to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. We encourage you to comment via the Internet at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Angela M.W. Newell (202-708-5409), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) final initial determination (“ID”) issued on April 24, 2012, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337 in the above-captioned investigation.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on November 8, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois. 75 FR 68619-20 (Nov. 8, 2010). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,272,333 (“the `333 patent”); 6,246,862 (“the `862 patent”); 6,246,697 (“the `697 patent”); 5,359,317 (“the `317 patent”); 5,636,223 (“the `223 patent”); and 7,751,826 (“the `826 patent”). The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California as respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigation (“OUII”) was named as a participating party, however, on July 29, 2011, OUII withdrew from further participation in the investigation.
On April 24, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation of section 337 as to the `697 patent and finding no violation as to the `223, `333, and `697 patents. On May 9, 2012, the ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. In his final ID, the ALJ found that the products accused of infringing the `697 patent literally infringe claims 1-4 of that patent, and that Apple induces others to infringe the asserted claims of the `697 patent. The ALJ also found that the asserted claims of the `697 patent are not invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102, as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, or for failure to satisfy the written description requirement or the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. The ALJ also found that the `697 patent is not unenforceable for unclean hands. The ALJ further found that Motorola has satisfied the domestic industry requirement for the `697 patent. The ALJ also found that the products accused of infringing the `223 patent literally infringe the asserted claim of that patent and that Apple induces others to infringe the claim 1 of the `223 patent. The ALJ further found, however, that the asserted claim of the `223 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. The ALJ also found that Motorola has satisfied the domestic industry requirement for the `223 patent. The ALJ further found that the products accused of infringing the `333 patent do not literally infringe claim 12 of that patent. The ALJ also found that the asserted claim of the `333 patent is not invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 or for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The ALJ further found that Motorola has not satisfied the domestic industry requirement for the `333 patent. The ALJ also found that that claim 1 of the `862 patent is invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 and, therefore, that the products accused of infringing the `862 patent do not literally infringe the asserted claim of that patent and that Motorola has not satisfied the domestic industry requirement for the `862 patent.
On May 7, 2012, Motorola filed a joint petition for review and contingent petition for review of certain aspects of the final ID's findings concerning claim construction, infringement, validity, and domestic industry. Also on May 7, 2012, Apple filed a joint petition for review and contingent petition for review of certain aspects of the final ID's findings concerning claim construction, infringement, validity, and patent unenforceability. On May 15, 2012, Motorola filed a response to Apple's petition. Also on May 15, 2012, Apple filed a response to Motorola's petition.
On June 6, 2012, Apple filed a post-RD statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 201.50(a)(4). Also on June 6, 2012, several non-parties filed public interest statements in response to the post-RD Commission Notice issued on May 15, 2012.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, with respect to the `223 patent the Commission has determined to review the ID's claim construction of the claim limitation “access priority value” in claim 1. The Commission has also determined to review the ID with respect to the validity of claim 1 of the `223 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102 in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,453,987 to Tran (“Tran `987) and U.S. Patent No. 5,657,317 to Mahany et al (“Mahany `317”) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of Tran `987 in combination with Mahany `317. The Commission has further determined to review the ID's finding that the 802.11 standard necessarily practices claim 1 of the `223 patent, and thus, the ID's findings concerning infringement and whether Motorola has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the `223 patent.
With respect to the `697 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ID's construction of the limitation “selecting a chip time in a complex PN [pseudonoise] sequence generator” in claim 1. The Commission has also determined to review the ID's construction of the claim limitation “restricting a phase difference between a previous complex PN chip and a next complex PN chip to a preselected phase angle.” The Commission has further determined to review the ID's findings with respect to the validity of claims 1-4 the `697 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102 in light of prior art π/2-shift BPSK modulation and under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of the combination of prior art QPSK and π/2-shift BPSK modulation schemes. The Commission has also determined to review the ID's finding of direct and induced infringement with respect to the `697 patent. The Commission has further determined to review the ID's finding that Motorola has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the `697 patent.
With respect to the `862 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ID's construction of the limitation “close proximity to a user” in claim 1 and his finding that claim 1 is indefinite.
With respect to the `333 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ID's construction of the limitation “a list of all software applications that are currently accessible to the subscriber unit” in claim 12. The Commission has further determined to review the ALJ's finding that claim 12 is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 in light of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,502,831 to Grube et al. (“Grube `831”), 6,008,737 to DeLuca et al. (“DeLuca `797”), or 5,612,682 to DeLuca et al. (“DeLuca `682”), or under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Grube `831 combined with DeLuca `682 and DeLuca `737. The Commission has also determined to review the ALJ's finding of non-infringement of claim 12. The Commission has further determined to review the ID's finding that Motorola's domestic industry product does not practice claim 12 of the `333 patent.
With respect to whether Motorola has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, the Commission has determined to review the ID's finding that Motorola has not satisfied the economic prong as to the `333 patent under section 337(a)(3)(C) for its investments in licensing. The Commission has also determined to review in part the ID's finding that Motorola has satisfied the economic prong with respect to the `223 and `697 patents under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
The Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the ID.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
1. Does the description of the present invention in the specification of the `697 patent (
2. If claim 4 of the `697 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 4, can a claim differentiation argument be made with respect to claims 1 and 4 that would resolve the appropriate scope of claim 1, considering the description of the present invention in the specification of the `697 patent?
3. With respect to the `333 patent, does the limitation “currently available” in claim 12 require that a non-web based software application need only be installed on a subscriber unit or does the software application have to be both installed and enabled for use? In discussing this issue, please refer to the ALJ's finding that the `333 Accused Products do not communicate with Apple's servers regarding changes in user credentials (
4. With regard to the `697 and `223 patents, are there substantial costs and delays associated with switching away from the standardized technology in question?
5. With regard to the `697 and `223 patents, do the patents in question cover relatively minor components of the accused products?
6. Has Apple waived its right to assert that Motorola failed to offer a license on reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms? In discussing this issue, please refer to Commission Investigative Staff Motion in Limine to Exclude The Expert Opinion of Jerry Hausman filed July 14, 2011, and to Respondent Apple Inc.'s Opposition to Commission Investigative Staff's Motion In Limine to Exclude the Expert Opinion of Robert O'Hara at page 1, n. 1 filed July 22, 2011.
7. If the record of an investigation lacks evidence sufficient to support a RAND-based affirmative defense (
8. Does the mere existence of a RAND obligation preclude issuance of an exclusion order? Please discuss theories in law, equity, and the public interest, and identify which (if any) of the 337(d)(1) public interest factors allegedly precludes issuance of such an order.
9. Should a patent owner that has refused to offer a license to a named respondent in a Commission investigation on a RAND obligated patent be able to obtain an exclusion order? Please discuss theories in law, equity, and the public interest, and identify which (if any) of the 337(d)(1) public interest factors allegedly precludes issuance of such an order.
10. Should a patent owner that has refused to offer a license on a RAND obligated patent to some entity (regardless of whether that entity is a named respondent in a Commission investigation) be able to obtain an exclusion order? Please discuss theories in law, equity, and the public interest, and identify which (if any) of the 337(d)(1) public interest factors allegedly precludes issuance of such an order.
11. Should a patent owner that has refused to negotiate a license on RAND terms with a named respondent in a Commission investigation be precluded from obtaining an exclusion order? Please discuss theories in law, equity, and the public interest, and identify which (if any) of the 337(d)(1) public interest factors allegedly precludes issuance of such an order.
12. Should a patent owner that has refused to negotiate a license on RAND terms with some entity (regardless of whether that entity is a named respondent in a Commission investigation) be precluded from obtaining an exclusion order? Please discuss theories in law, equity, and the public interest, and identify which (if any) of the 337(d)(1) public interest factors allegedly precludes issuance of such an order.
13. Should a patent owner who has offered a RAND license that the named respondent in a Commission investigation has rejected be precluded from obtaining an exclusion order? Please discuss theories in law, equity, and the public interest, and identify which (if any) of the 337(d)(1) public interest factors allegedly precludes issuance of such an order.
The parties have been invited to brief only these discrete issues, as enumerated above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background,
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-754”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 23, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of FlashPoint Technology, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic imaging devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,400,471 (“the '471 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,222,538 (“the '538 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,504,575 (“the '575 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,223,190 (“the '190 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic imaging devices that infringe one or more of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 34-43, 60, and 62-69 of the '471 patent; claims 1, 17, 19, and 21-23 of the '538 patent; claims 1, 8, 17, 18, 20-22, 26, and 28 of the '575 patent, and claims 13, 14, 16, 20-29, 31-33, 36-39, 42, 43, 46-49, and 52-56 of the '190 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: FlashPoint Technology, Inc., 20 Depot Street, Suite 2A, Peterborough, NH 03458.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission,
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on June 25, 2012, a proposed Second Amendment to the consent decree in
On March 18, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered a consent decree (“decree”) resolving claims of the United States and twelve states or state agencies against Lafarge North America, Inc., Lafarge Midwest, Inc., and Lafarge Building Materials, Inc. (“Lafarge”) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) at its thirteen portland cement production facilities in the United States. Specifically, the consent decree resolved alleged violations of the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) provisions, 42 U.S.C. 7470-92; Nonattainment New Source Review (“NNSR”) provisions, 42 U.S.C. 7501-15; the federally approved and enforceable state implementation plans (“SIPs”) which incorporate and/or implement the above-listed federal PSD and/or NNSR requirements; and the CAA Title V operating permit requirements, 42 U.S.C. 7661-61f, including Title V's implementing federal and state regulations.
The proposed Second Amendment affects only three of the thirteen cement plants addressed in the Consent Decree: the Roberta, Alabama; Harleyville, South Carolina; and Atlanta, Georgia cement plants. The Amendment substitutes Argos USA Corp. and Argos Cement LLC (collectively, “Argos”) for Lafarge with respect to those facilities following their sale by Lafarge to Argos on October 3, 2011. Argos has agreed to undertake the Consent Decree obligations applicable to those facilities, to be substituted for Lafarge with respect to those facilities and has demonstrated that it has the financial and technical ability to assume the Decree's obligations at those facilities. The proposed Second Amendment also amends the Consent Decree to terminate Consent Decree requirements applicable to the Atlanta facility because all Decree obligations at that plant have been met and no further obligations apply to that facility under the Decree.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Second Amendment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to
During the public comment period, the proposed Second Amendment to the consent decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, on May 24, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, East European Authoring and Encoding Centre Ltd., Sofia, Bulgaria; Hansong (Nanjing) Electronics Ltd., Nanjing, People's Republic of China; Primare Systems, Växjö, Sweden; Rohm Co., Ltd., Ukyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan; and Seripress SAS, Bulgnevile, France, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, SM Summit Holdings Limited has changed its name to Centurion Corporation Limited, Singapore, Singapore; and Ultra Source Technology Corp. has changed its name to Ultra Source Trading Hong Kong Limited, Shatin N.T., Hong Kong-China.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written
On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 24, 2012. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 4, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The following parties have withdrawn from the venture: Access Co. Ltd., Tokyo, JAPAN; France Telecom S.A. (Orange Personal Communications Services Limited, Moulineaux, FRANCE; Adobe, San Jose, CA; ARM Holdings, PLC, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; ETRI Embedded SW Division, Daejon, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Gemalto, N.V., Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Huawei Communication Technologies Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Incross Co. Ltd., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Marvell International Ltd., Hamilton, BERMUDA; McAfee Inc., Santa Clara, CA; NTT DATA MSE, Yokohama, JAPAN; Renesas Mobile Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; Verizon Communications, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, and Wind River Systems, Alameda, CA.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Tizen intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 1, 2007, Tizen (Formerly LiMo Foundation) filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 19, 2011. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 4, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 3D PDF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 27, 2012, 3D PDF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 30, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the Delaware non-stock, non-profit standards development organization is Bluetooth SIG, Inc., Kirkland, WA. The nature and scope of Bluetooth SIG, Inc.'s standards development activities are to develop Bluetooth® wireless specifications and profiles. Additional information concerning Bluetooth SIG, Inc. may be obtained from Christine Scott, Bluetooth SIG, Inc.'s Director of Operations.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Regulations Governing Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Administration,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before July 30, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
The OWCP administers the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The LHWCA provides benefits to workers injured in maritime employment on the navigable waters of the U.S. or in an adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel. In addition, several acts extend Longshore Act coverage to certain other employees. Regulations sections 20 CFR 702.111, -.162, -.174, -.175, -.201, -.202, -.242, -.285, -.285, -.310, and -.321 and Forms LS-200, LS-201, LS-203, LS-204, LS-262, LS-267, LS-271, LS-274, and LS-513 cover the submission of information relating to the processing of claims for benefits under the Longshore Act and extensions. This ICR has been characterized as a revision under the PRA for technical reasons. The agency has reformatted elements of the forms (e.g., replaced an obsolete logo with the DOL Seal and removed references to the no longer existent Employment Standards Administration). Those changes should not affect respondent information collection burden.
These information collections are subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send timely comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
On June 29, 2012, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Marine Terminals and Longshoring Standards” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Submit comments on or before July 30, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email:
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The Marine Terminals and Longshoring Standards information collection requirements are related to the testing, certification, and marking of specific types of cargo lifting appliances and associated cargo handling gear and other cargo handling equipment such as conveyors and industrial trucks. The information the OSHA requires from employers are necessary to reduce worker injuries and fatalities associated with cargo lifting gear, transfer of vehicular cargo, manual cargo handling, and exposure to hazardous atmospheres.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send timely comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or Department), Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) announces the availability of approximately $2.5 million to fund a cooperative agreement to manage and operate its Job Accommodation Network (JAN), a national technical assistance center that facilitates the employment and retention of workers with disabilities. Created in 1983, JAN is the most comprehensive job accommodation resource available. It is the leading source of free, expert, and confidential one-on-one guidance on workplace accommodations, the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAA) and related legislation, and self-employment and entrepreneurship options for people with disabilities. JAN provides technical assistance via phone, email and chat, and maintains a Web site containing online resources and publications. Technical assistance regarding individualized job accommodations and workplace strategies for job applicants and employees with disabilities is provided to private and federal sector employers, people with disabilities including disabled veterans, employment service providers, educational institutions and others. JAN develops and conducts trainings both in person and electronically (web-based and telephonic); works in collaboration with businesses, professional organizations, federal agencies and others on effective practices and other issues related to accommodations in the workplace; and engages in outreach to the public about its services. JAN establishes and maintains effective working relationships and collaborations with outside entities with the goal of sharing knowledge and promoting the adoption and implementation of ODEP policies and effective practices. JAN also conducts research and collects and analyzes data related to the cost and effectiveness of workplace accommodations and provides data that contribute to ODEP's annual performance measures and the development of its policies.
Funding of $2.5 million will be awarded through a competitive process for a 12-month period of performance, with the possibility of up to four option years of funding depending on the availability of funds and satisfactory performance.
This solicitation provides background information, describes the application submission requirements, outlines the process that eligible entities must use to apply for funds covered by this solicitation, and outlines the evaluation
The full Solicitation for Grant Applications is posted on
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by July 30, 2012. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Polly A. Penhale at the above address or (703) 292-7420.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
The applications received are as follows:
1.
Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applicant is a member of the Artists and Writers Program and plans to enter Caughley Beach, Cape Bird (ASPA 116), Cape Royds (ASPA 121), and Cape Crozier (ASPA 124) to photograph and record sounds of wildlife in Antarctica including Adelie and Emperor penguins. The recordings along with that of the wind and other aspects of the environment will allow the applicant to capture the essence of Antarctica through light, sound and movement. The resulting images and sounds will be included in the installation that will be created about Antarctica.
Caughley Beach, Cape Bird (ASPA 116), Cape Royds (ASPA 121), Cape Crozier (ASPA 124), and Cape Bird, Ross Island.
October 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
On May 24, 2012, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Jean Pennycook.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On May 11, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Tennessee Eastman Corporation (1943-1947) and the Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation (1947-1949) who were employed at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, from January 1, 1943 through December 31, 1949 for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation became effective on June 10, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On May 11, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked in any area at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, from January 1, 1963 through December 31, 1994, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation became effective on June 10, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Electro Metallurgical site in Niagara Falls, New York, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On May 11, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Electro Metallurgical site in Niagara Falls, New York, from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1947, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation became effective on June 10, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On May 11, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, from January 1, 1980 through December 31, 1993, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for
This designation became effective on June 10, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
CMS proposes to continue to use the Criteria Worksheets (Forms CMS-437A and CMS-437B) for verifying first-time exclusions from the IPPS, for complaint surveys, for its annual 5 percent validation sample, and for facility self-attestation. These forms are related to the survey and certification and Medicare approval of the IPPS-excluded rehabilitation units and rehabilitation hospitals.
For rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units already excluded from the IPPS, annual onsite re-verification surveys by the SA are not required. These hospitals and units will be provided with a copy of the appropriate CMS-437 Worksheet at least 5-months prior to the beginning of its cost reporting period, so that the hospital/unit official may complete and sign an attestation statement and complete and return the appropriate CMS-437A or CMS-437B at least 5 months prior to the beginning of its cost reporting period. Fiscal Intermediaries will continue to verify, on an annual basis, compliance with the 60 percent rule (42 CFR 412.29(b)(2)) for rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units through a sample of medical records and the SA will verify the medical director requirement.
The SA will maintain the documents unless instructed otherwise by the RO. The SA will notify the RO at least 60 days prior to the end of the rehabilitation hospital's/unit's cost reporting period of the IRF's compliance or non-compliance with the payment requirements. The information collected on these forms, along with other information submitted by the IRF is necessary for determining exclusion from the IPPS. Hospitals and units that have already been excluded need not reapply for exclusion. These facilities will automatically be reevaluated yearly to determine whether they continue to meet the exclusion criteria.
Both forms have been revised since the publication of the 60-day
2.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 30, 2012.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces that a public meeting of the Medicare Economic Index Technical Advisory Panel (“the Panel”). The purpose of the Panel is to review all aspects of the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). During this third and final meeting the Panel will discuss their findings and recommendations regarding the MEI's inputs, input weights, price-measurement proxies, and productivity adjustment. This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
John Poisal, Designated Federal Officer, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, Mail stop N3-02-02, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244 or contact Mr. Poisal by phone at (410) 786-6397 or via email at
The Medicare Economic Index Technical Advisory Panel (“the Panel”) was established by the Secretary to conduct a technical review of the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). The review will include the inputs, input weights, price-measurement proxies, and productivity adjustment. For more information on the Panel, see the October 7, 2011
This notice announces the Wednesday, July 11, 2012 public meeting of the Panel. This meeting will focus on the Panel's findings and recommendations regarding the MEI's inputs, input weights, price-measurement proxies, and the productivity adjustment.
This meeting is open to the public. There will be up to 45 minutes allotted at this meeting for the Panel to hear oral presentations from the public. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, we will conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by 5 p.m. EDT, Friday, July 6, 2012. Any presentations that are not selected based on the lottery will be forwarded to the panel for consideration. For this meeting, public comments should focus on the MEI's inputs, input weights, price-measurement proxies, and productivity adjustment. We require that you declare at the meeting whether you have any financial involvement with manufacturers (or their competitors) of any items or services being discussed.
The Panel will deliberate openly on the topics under consideration. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Panel will not hear further comments during this time except at the request of the chairperson. The Panel will also allow up to 15 minutes for an unscheduled open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topics under consideration.
HCD International is coordinating meeting registration. While there is no registration fee, individuals must register to attend. You may register online at
This meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, 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 presentation or to support a presentation.
Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting. All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.
5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal of the compliance policy guide (CPG) entitled “Sec. 230.110 Registration of Blood Banks, Other Firms Collecting, Manufacturing, Preparing, or Processing Human Blood or Blood Products (CPG 7134.01),” dated June 17, 1974.
The withdrawal is effective June 29, 2012.
Robert L. Hummel, Division of Compliance Policy (HFC-230), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., ELEM-4152, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4510.
FDA issued the CPG entitled “Sec. 230.110 Registration of Blood Banks, Other Firms Collecting, Manufacturing, Preparing, or Processing Human Blood or Blood Products (CPG 7134.01)” on June 17, 1974. We originally issued CPG 7134.01 entitled “Establishment Registration and Product Listing for Manufacturers of Human Blood and Blood Products,” to provide FDA's current thinking regarding the registration required by 21 CFR part 607 of blood banks and other establishments collecting, manufacturing, preparing, or processing human blood or blood products. Since the last update to CPG 7134.01 in 2000, the regulations for blood establishment registration under part 607 have been amended several times. FDA is withdrawing CPG 7134.01 because it is obsolete.
Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice advises the public of the published lists of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities designated as primary medical care, mental health, and dental health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) as of April 1, 2012, available on the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Web site at
Requests for further information on the HPSA designations listed on the HRSA Web site below and requests for additional designations, withdrawals, or reapplication for designation should be submitted to Andy Jordan, Office of Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 9A-55, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (301) 594-0816.
Public or private nonprofit entities are eligible to apply for assignment of National Health Service Corps (NHSC) personnel to provide primary care, dental, or mental health services in these HPSAs. NHSC health
Individual requests for designation or withdrawal of a particular geographic area, population group, or a facility as a HPSA are received and reviewed continuously by BHPr. The majority of the requests come from the Primary Care Office (PCO) in the State Health Departments, who have access to the on-line application and review system. Requests that come from other sources are referred to the PCOs for their review and concurrence. In addition, applicants are expected to share copies of the requests with other interested parties, including the Governor, the State Primary Care Association and State professional associations for their comments and recommendations.
Annually, lists of designated HPSAs are made available to all PCOs, state medical and dental societies and others, with a request to review and update the data on which the designations are based. Emphasis is placed on updating those designations that are more than three years old or where significant changes relevant to the designation criteria have occurred.
Recommendations for possible additions, continuations, revisions or withdrawals from a HPSA list are reviewed by BHPr, and the review findings are provided by letter to the agency or individual requesting action or providing data, with copies to other interested organizations and individuals. These letters constitute the official notice of designation as a HPSA, rejection of recommendations for HPSA designation, revision of a HPSA designation, and/or advance notice of pending withdrawals from the HPSA list. Designations (or revisions of designations) are effective as of the date of the notification letter from BHPr. Proposed withdrawals become effective only after interested parties in the area affected have been afforded the opportunity to submit additional information to BHPr in support of its continued or revised designation. If no new data are submitted, or if BHPr review confirms the proposed withdrawal, the withdrawal becomes effective upon publication of the lists of designated HPSAs in the
In addition to the specific listings included in this notice, all Indian Tribes that meet the definition of such Tribes in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, 25 U.S.C. 1603(d), are automatically designated as population groups with primary medical care and dental health professional shortages. The Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 also made the following entities eligible for automatic facility HPSA designations: all federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and rural health clinics that offer services regardless of ability to pay. These entities include: FQHCs funded under section 330 of the PHS Act, FQHC Look-Alikes, and Tribal and Urban Indian clinics operating under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450) or the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Many, but not all, of these entities are included on this listing. Exclusion from this list does not exclude them from the list of HPSAs; all will be included in the data base as they are identified.
Any designated HPSA listed on the HRSA Web site below is subject to withdrawal from designation if new information received and confirmed by HRSA indicates that the relevant data for the area involved have significantly changed since its designation. The effective date of such a withdrawal will be the next publication of a notice regarding this list in the
All requests for new designations, updates, or withdrawals should be based on the relevant criteria in regulations published at 42 CFR part 5.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Dr. Amanda Greene, Science Evaluation Officer, Office of Science Policy and Public Liaison, NINR, Democracy One, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 700, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number 301-496-9601, or email your request to
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
(a) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section to authorize the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development* to conduct a national longitudinal study of environmental influences (including physical, chemical, biological, and psychosocial) on children's health and development.
(b) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development* shall establish a consortium of representatives from appropriate Federal agencies (including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency) to—
(1) Plan, develop, and implement a prospective cohort study, from birth to adulthood, to evaluate the effects of both chronic and intermittent exposures on child health and human development; and
(2) Investigate basic mechanisms of developmental disorders and environmental factors, both risk and protective, that
(c) REQUIREMENT.—The study under subsection (b) shall—
(1) Incorporate behavioral, emotional, educational, and contextual consequences to enable a complete assessment of the physical, chemical, biological, and psychosocial environmental influences on children's well-being;
(2) Gather data on environmental influences and outcomes on diverse populations of children, which may include the consideration of prenatal exposures; and
(3) Consider health disparities among children, which may include the consideration of prenatal exposures.
To fulfill the requirements of the Children's Health Act, the Child Health Disparities Substudy will validate measures needed for studying health disparities and selected biomarkers. Utilizing cognitive interview techniques and components of standardized questionnaires, responses will be used to assess and validate measures of health literacy, discrimination, parenting self-efficacy, and health care accessibility. Acceptability and feasibility of saliva collection from a subsample of women and young children will also be evaluated. The incorporation of saliva measurements will increase understanding of biological responses to environmental factors and how these may be correlated with health disparities within this population.
To conduct the detailed preparation needed for a study of this size and complexity, the NCS was designed to include a preliminary pilot study known as the Vanguard Study. The purpose of the Vanguard Study is to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and cost of the recruitment strategy, study procedures, and outcome assessments that are to be used in the NCS Main Study. The Vanguard Study begins prior to the NCS Main Study and will run in parallel with the Main Study. At every phase of the NCS, the multiple methodological studies conducted during the Vanguard phase will inform the implementation and analysis plan for the Main Study.
In this information collection request, the NCS requests approval from OMB to perform a multi-center substudy called the Child Health Disparity Substudy. This substudy aims to validate measures needed for studying health disparities and selected biomarkers. Developing optimum measures for studying health disparities is of particular interest to the NCS because studies have shown that health literacy, discrimination, parenting self-efficacy, health care (access, utilization, and quality) contribute to health disparities. Additionally, aspects of the social environment such as social isolation, lack of control and contingency and social support, violence, discrimination, challenging and changing social relationships, and restricted access to health care are thought to interact with biological processes. Variation in these processes has been associated with negative emotional states, cognitive deficits, problem behavior, and a variety of metabolic and immune-related processes. Alone, or particularly in combination with other commonly collected measures of social forces and family relationships, salivary analytes have the potential to advance our understanding of maternal and child health and development. This project will make its contribution to the NCS Main Study and to the health disparities field as a whole by constructing a validated set of questionnaire measures and biomarker analyses that can be used among pregnant women and mothers of young children for the purpose of investigating disparities.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Office of the Director (OD), Office of Extramural Research (OER), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.
The PHS 398 application is used by applicants to request federal assistance funds for traditional investigator-initiated research projects and to request access to databases and other PHS resources. The PHS 416-1 is used only for a change of sponsoring institution application. PHS Fellowship