Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Antitrust Division
Refugee Resettlement Office
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Refugee Resettlement Office
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Fish and Wildlife Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Antitrust Division
Justice Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Technical amendment; correction.
The FAA is correcting a technical amendment published on July 5, 2012 (77 FR 39623). In that technical amendment, the FAA clarified aircraft engine vibration test requirements in the airworthiness standards. The technical amendment was in response to inquiries from applicants requesting FAA engine type certifications and aftermarket certifications, such as supplemental type certificates, parts manufacturing approvals, and repairs. We revised the regulation to clarify that engine surveys require an engine test. Representatives of industry suggested that our technical amendment was in fact, a substantive change in the regulation, not a clarification. The FAA is correcting our prior action in response to that industry claim. This document amends the FAA's regulations to reverse the changes to § 33.83(a) amendment 33-33 and restore § 33.83(a) to its previous amendment 33-17.
This corrective action becomes effective September 20, 2012.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Dorina Mihail, Federal Aviation Administration, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5229; (781) 238-7153; facsimile: (781) 238-7199; email:
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Vincent Bennett, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Regional Counsel, ANE-7, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7044; fax (781) 238-7055; email
On July 5, 2012, the FAA published a Technical Amendment entitled, “Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engine” (77 FR 39623). In that technical amendment, the FAA intended to clarify vibration test requirements in § 33.83 of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 33. By letter dated August 3, 2012, the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) asserts that the rule appears to be a substantive change that should have been open to public comment. The MARPA further asserts that had the rule been open for comment, it and others would have commented that the technical amendment undermines the existing regulatory system, rather than improving it, and that it imposes unnecessary burdens on the applicant and the government with no commensurate safety benefit. We do not agree with MARPA's assertion that the rule change was substantive. However, in the interest of transparency in the rulemaking process, we are changing the language of § 33.83(a) amendment 33-33 back to the language in § 33.83(a) of the previous amendment 33-17.
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
In consideration of the following, the Federal Aviation Administration corrects part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
(a) Each engine must undergo vibration surveys to establish that the vibration characteristics of those components that may be subject to mechanically or aerodynamically induced vibratory excitations are acceptable throughout the declared flight envelope. The engine surveys shall be based upon an appropriate combination of experience, analysis, and component test and shall address, as a minimum, blades, vanes, rotor discs, spacers, and rotor shafts.
Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services.
Final requirements.
The Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereafter “the Secretaries”) announce requirements for Phase 2 of the Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) program. In Phase 2, we will make awards to certain States that applied for, but did not receive, funding under the RTT-ELC competition held in fiscal year (FY) 2011 (FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition). Specifically, we will consider eligible the five highest scoring applicants that did not receive funding in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, each of which received approximately 75 percent or more of the available points under the
Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3E230, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 260-3793 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The
The
The Budget Requirements, which can be found in section V of the
Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), as amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of Pub. L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of Division F of Pub. L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012) (hereafter “the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012”).
We published a notice of proposed requirements (NPR) for this program in the
There are two significant differences between the requirements proposed in the NPR and these final requirements. First, in this notice, the Departments have clarified that applicants may make reductions and adjustments in the activities in Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, and Competitive Preference Priority 2 based on the 50 percent reduction in available Federal funding for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program. Second, the Departments are requiring applicants to explain any significant changes to the information provided in section (A)(1) that have occurred since submission of their FY 2011 applications, including updates to the information provided in tables 1-13 in section (A)(1) of their FY 2011 applications. These changes are described in greater detail below in the
A State is not permitted, however, to use Phase 2 RTT-ELC funds for activities that were not included in its FY 2011 application because the applications of the five eligible States were reviewed, scored, and ranked through the Departments' FY 2011 RTT-ELC peer review process. It would therefore be inappropriate to allow applicants to introduce new activities in place of those activities that were proposed in their FY 2011 applications.
The Departments will provide technical assistance to applicants on what constitutes a “new activity” rather than an adjustment to the scope of an activity included in a State's FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. For example, creating an entirely new project to address one of the selection criteria would be a new activity, while a change in the number of regions served or subgrants awarded would be an allowable adjustment. The adjustments may not significantly diminish the program's ability to improve access to high-quality early learning programs for children with high needs. In addition, when the scope of work is adjusted by targeting specific regions in a State, the activities must be consistent across those regions. In making these adjustments, the Departments strongly encourage eligible applicants to consider how to use other appropriate Federal, State, private, and local resources in order to maximize the impact of the investment of RTT-ELC funds. If we determine that a State's Phase 2 application proposes activities that were not included in its FY 2011 application, those activities will not be funded, and we will work with the State to make the necessary adjustments.
The Secretary announces the following requirements for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program. Except where otherwise indicated in these final requirements, the applicable final requirements and definitions of key terms from the notice inviting applications, published in the
I.
(a) An application, consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, that—
(1) Meets the application requirements described in the
(2) Provides the assurances described in the
(b) For review and approval by both Departments, a detailed plan and budget describing the activities selected from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application that would be implemented with Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding, in accordance with the
We encourage eligible applicants to partner with each other and currently funded RTT-ELC grantees in carrying out specific activities (such as validation of a State's TQRIS, implementation of longitudinal data systems, or development of a kindergarten entry assessment). Each eligible applicant may apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards individually or as a member of a consortium (with other eligible applicants) under 34 CFR 75.127-129. A consortium can be formed only with other eligible applicants and requires a single application. A partnership can be described in the application of an individual State or a consortium and can include eligible applicants as well as currently-funded grantees. In any event, an eligible applicant must propose activities for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program that are consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
II.
III.
(a) Each eligible applicant must describe how it would implement an organizational structure for managing the Phase 2 RTT-ELC grant that is consistent with the activities and commitments described in response to selection criterion A(3)(a)(1)
(b) In addition to addressing the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, each eligible applicant must select and describe how it will implement activities that it identified in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application in response to Focused Investment Areas C, D, or E. The eligible applicant must select activities from two or more of the three Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E, and the activities must be responsive to one or more of the selection criteria under the Focused Investment Areas chosen by the applicant. (Eligible applicants may implement additional activities proposed under more than one selection criterion within each Focused Investment Area.) In determining which selection criteria to address given the amount of available funds under Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program, each eligible applicant must give consideration to those activities that will have the greatest impact on improving access to high-quality early learning programs for children with high needs.
In light of the reduced funding available, applicants may make adjustments in the scope of services provided to meet selection criteria in Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, Competitive Preference Priority 2, and Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E. For example, an applicant may propose to serve fewer programs or regions of the State than it proposed to serve in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. The eligible applicant must provide a detailed explanation of its rationale for such adjustments and also must amend its targets in tables B(2)(c) and B(4)(c)(1-2) of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, as needed. The adjustments may not diminish the program's impact on improving access to high-quality early learning programs for children with high needs. In addition, if the scope of work is adjusted by targeting specific regions in the State, the activities must be consistent across regions. In making these adjustments, the Departments strongly encourage eligible applicants to consider how to use other appropriate Federal, State, private, and local resources to support their selected activities.
(c) In addition, each eligible applicant may implement the activities it proposed in response to the Invitational Priorities from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. Eligible applicants that wrote to Invitational Priority 2 are encouraged to enter into public-private partnerships to the extent that doing so would augment total funds available for carrying out the activities described in their FY 2011 RTT-ELC applications.
We encourage grantees to enter into consortia, where relevant, in order to maximize the use of available funds. Please refer to section (V)(b).
(d) The Departments will use Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding to support only those activities included in an eligible applicant's FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. Therefore, an eligible applicant must not include new activities in its Phase 2 RTT-ELC application.
(e) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include current signatures by the eligible applicant's Governor or an authorized representative signing on behalf of the Governor; an authorized representative from the eligible applicant's Lead Agency; and an authorized representative from each Participating State Agency.
(f) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include a newly-signed Memorandum of Understanding and a preliminary scope of work for each Participating State Agency.
IV.
(a) While the State may make appropriate adjustments to the scope, budget, timelines, and performance targets, consistent with the reduced amount of funding that is available under the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process, the State will maintain consistency with the absolute priority and meet all program and eligibility requirements of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition.
(b) The State must update tables 1-5 from section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 application. In addition, if the State has made any significant changes to the commitments, financial investments, numbers of children served, legislation, policies, practices, or other key areas of the program described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 application, it must submit an explanation of those changes, including updates to tables 6-13 from section (A)(1) as needed.
The State will maintain, in a manner consistent with its updates to tables 1-13, its commitment to and investment in high-quality, accessible early learning and development programs and services for children with high needs, as described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(c) Subject to adjustments due to the reduced amount of funding available under the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process, the State will maintain its plan to establish strong participation and commitment by Participating State Agencies and other early learning and development stakeholders as described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(d) The State will maintain its commitment to integrating and aligning resources and policies across Participating State Agencies as described in Section A(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(e) The State will comply with all of the accountability, transparency, and reporting requirements that applied to the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. (See the notice inviting applications for the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, published in the
(f) The State will comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the RTT-ELC program, or of specific activities it proposes to pursue as part of the program, conducted and supported by the Departments.
V.
(a)
(b)
(c)
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or local programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This regulatory action will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million because the amount of government transfers through the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process exceeds that amount. Therefore, this action is “economically significant” and subject to review by OMB review under
The Departments have also reviewed these requirements under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these requirements only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Departments believe these requirements are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action will not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the need for regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as regulatory alternatives we considered.
These requirements are needed to implement the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process in the manner that the Departments believe will best enable the program to achieve its objectives—to create the conditions for effective reform in early learning systems in States that had high-scoring applications in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition but that did not receive funding in that competition, so that they can implement key elements of their comprehensive reform proposals submitted as part of their FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition applications.
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these requirements will not impose significant additional costs to State applicants or the Federal Government. Most of the requirements contained in this notice involve re-affirming State commitments and plans already completed as part of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition or other Federal education programs. Similarly, other requirements, in particular those related to maintaining conditions for reform required under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, require continuation of existing commitments and investments rather than the imposition of additional burdens and costs. The Departments believe those States that are eligible for Phase 2 awards will incur minimal costs in developing plans and budgets for implementing selected activities from their FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition proposals, because in most cases such planning will entail only revisions to existing plans and budgets already developed as part of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application process and not the development and implementation of entirely new plans and budgets. In all cases, the Departments believe that the benefits resulting from the requirements for the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process will exceed their costs.
An alternative to promulgation of these requirements would have been to use FY 2012 Race to the Top funds to make awards to the one or two highest scoring unfunded applications from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition and to use the remaining funds for the Race to the Top District competition to be held in FY 2012. We concluded that approximately $400 million in available FY 2012 funds is necessary to support a meaningful district-level competition.
Moreover, the Departments believe that simply funding the one or two highest scoring applicants that were not selected in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition would result in a missed opportunity to reward the efforts of other high-scoring applicants from that competition and to enable them to make meaningful progress on key elements of their State early learning plans.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process will provide approximately $133 million in competitive grants to eligible applicants (those five applicants that did not receive funding in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, but which received approximately 75 percent or more of the available points under the competition).
These requirements have been determined to be a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days after the date on which the rule is published in the
These final requirements are needed to implement the Phase 2 RTT-ELC program, authorized under Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), as amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012, which was signed into law on December 23, 2011. The Department must award funds under this authority to qualified applicants by December 31, 2012, or the funds will lapse. Even on an expedited timeline, it is impracticable for the Department to adhere to a 60-day delayed effective date for the final requirements and make grant awards to qualified applicants by the December 31, 2012 deadline. When the 60-day delayed effective date is added to the time the Department will need to receive applications (approximately 45 days), review the applications (approximately 21 days), and finally approve applications (approximately 28 days), the Department will not be able to award funds authorized under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 to applicants by December 31, 2012. The Department has therefore determined that, pursuant to section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day delay in the effective date generally required for congressional review is impracticable, contrary to the public interest, and waived for good cause.
These final requirements contain information collection requirements. However, because the eligible applicants for Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards are fewer than 10, these collections are not subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i)).
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of these Departments published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted September 21, 2010. This revision will amend the ambient air quality standards table to reflect revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), update reference methods associated with the revised NAAQS, and update the breakpoint values for the Air Quality Index. These revisions make Missouri's rules consistent with Federal regulations and improve the clarity of the rules. EPA's approval of this SIP revision is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This direct final rule will be effective November 19, 2012, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 22, 2012. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0596, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Amy Bhesania at (913) 551-7147, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA.
EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri SIP submitted to EPA on September 21, 2010. EPA has conducted an analysis of the State's amendments and has concluded that these revisions do not adversely affect the stringency of the SIP. Missouri's revisions include amendments to rules 10 CSR 10-6.010
The revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.010
The revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.040
The revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.130
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
EPA is approving the request to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to amend 10 CSR 10-6.010
We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. This action was published on June 13, 2012 and concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the manufacture of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene products. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on October 22, 2012.
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0546 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4118,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35327), EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(411) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD), Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from coating of metal containers, closures and coils, from graphic arts operations, from the provision of sampling and testing facilities required for permitting and from adhesives and sealant applications. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on November 19, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 22, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0550, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3576,
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
We approved an earlier version of SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 into the SIP on November 3, 1997 (62 FR 59284) and an earlier version of SDCAPCD Rule 67.16 was approved into the SIP on March 27, 1997 (62 FR 14639). An earlier version of MBUAPCD Rule 205 was approved into the SIP on July 13, 1987 (52 FR 26148). There are no approved earlier versions of AVAQMD Rule 1168.
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions by limiting VOC content in coatings and solvents. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(1) and 193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook),
2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” EPA, Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook),
3. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks” EPA, May 1977 (EPA-450/2-76-028),
4. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings”, EPA, September 2008 (EPA-453/R-08-003),
5. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning”, EPA, September 2006 (EPA 453/-06-001),
6. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume I: Control Methods for Surface Coating Operations”, EPA, November 1976 (EPA-450/2-76-028),
7. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing”, EPA, September 2006 (EPA-453/R-06-002),
8. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing”, EPA, September 2006 (EPA-453/R-06-003),
9. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning Solvents”, EPA, September 2006 (EPA 453/R-06-001),
10. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives”, EPA, September 2008 (EPA-453/R-08-005) and
11. “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for Adhesives and Sealants”, CARB, December, 1998
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 November 19, 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.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(282) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
(
(411) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(
(
(D) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District
(
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a petition submitted by ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company (ExxonMobil) Baytown Refinery to exclude from hazardous waste control (or delist) a certain solid waste. This final rule responds to the petition submitted by ExxonMobil to have the F039 underflow water generated at the North Landfarm (NLF) in Baytown, Texas excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste.
After careful analysis and evaluation of comments submitted by the public, the EPA has concluded that the petitioned wastes are not hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion applies to 7,427 cubic yards per year of the F039 underflow water. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills but imposes testing conditions to ensure that the future-generated wastes remain qualified for delisting.
The public docket for this final rule is located at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of Information Act review room on the 7th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The reference number for this docket is EPA-R06-RCRA-2012-0138. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages and at a
For general information, contact Melissa Smith, at (214) 665-7357. For technical information concerning this notice, contact Wendy Jacques, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-7395, or
The information in this section is organized as follows:
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed on June 19, 2012, to exclude the underflow water from the lists of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 (see 73 FR 54760). EPA is finalizing the decision to grant ExxonMobil's delisting petition to have the underflow water excluded, or delisted from the definition of hazardous waste subject to certain continued verification and monitoring conditions.
ExxonMobil's petition requests a delisting for the underflow water listed as F039. ExxonMobil does not believe that the petitioned waste meet the criteria for which EPA listed them. ExxonMobil also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4). In making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in §§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA believes that the petitioned wastes do not meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's decision to delist wastes from the facility is based on the information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the waste and analytical data from the ExxonMobil, Beaumont, Texas facility.
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only if the requirements described in Table 1 and 2 of part 261, Appendix IX and the conditions contained herein are satisfied.
ExxonMobil will either: (1) Continue to accumulate the underflow water in a holding tank, sample the water once each calendar year, analyze the annual sample for target constituents and submit the results to the EPA for review; or (2) route the underflow to the underflow collection system and then to the series of ditches to the underground Baytown Refinery East sewer. In the latter case, samples of the underflow water would be collected from the underflow sump once each calendar year, analyzed for target constituents and the results submitted to the EPA for review. Ultimately, the underflow will enter the waste water treatment system where it is commingled with other wastewaters from the Baytown Chemical Plant and Baytown Olefins Plant.
This rule is effective September 20, 2012. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA allows rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If ExxonMobil transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State with delisting authorization, ExxonMobil must obtain delisting authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the State.
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or another agency
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, § 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of Parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator-specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow the EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
In August 2010, ExxonMobil petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, underflow water (F039) generated from its facility located in Baytown, Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, in its petition, ExxonMobil requested that EPA grant a standard exclusion for 7,427 cubic yards (1,500,000 gallons) per year of the underflow water.
To support its petition, ExxonMobil submitted:
(1) Historical information on waste generation and management practices; and
(2) Analytical results from five samples for total concentrations of compounds of concern (COC)s.
The EPA received public comments on the June 2012, proposed rule from two citizens. The comments and responses are addressed below.
Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 announces the deletion of the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site (Site) located in Wilmington, North Carolina, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This action is effective September 20, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are:
Beverly Hudson-Stepter, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Contact No: (404) 562-8816. Electronic mail at:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site located in Wilmington, North Carolina. A Notice of Intent To Delete was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was July 22, 2012. No public comments were received during the comment period. Therefore, a responsiveness summary was not prepared and placed in the docket, EPA-R04-SFUND-2012-0091, on
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection; Air pollution control; Chemicals; Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; possession limit reduction.
The northern red hake possession limit is reduced to the incidental possession limit of 400 lb (181.44 kg) for the remainder of the 2012 fishing year.
Effective at 0001 hr local time, September 20, 2012, through 2400 hr local time April 30, 2013.
Jason Berthiaume, (978) 281-9177, or
The regulations at 50 CFR 648.86(d)(4) require that, if the NMFS Northeast Region Administrator (Regional Administrator) projects that 90 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL) has been landed for a small-mesh multispecies stock, the Regional Administrator shall reduce the possession limit for that stock to the incidental possession limit of 400 lb (181.44 kg) for the remainder of the fishing year.
The 2012 fishing year northern red hake TAL is 199,077 lb (90,300 kg) (77 FR 19138; March 30, 2012) and 90 percent of the TAL is 179,169 lb (81,270 kg). Based on dealer, vessel trip report, and other available information, NMFS
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that clarified our interpretation of the veterinary practitioner exemption provided by the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 16, 2012.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Donna Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; phone (301) 851-3426, fax (301) 734-4314.
The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 151-159) includes an exemption that allows veterinary biologics to be prepared by a veterinary practitioner solely for administration to animals in the course of a State-licensed professional practice of veterinary medicine under a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. On July 18, 2012, we published in the
Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before September 17, 2012. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2011-0048 for an additional 60 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. We will also consider all comments received between September 18, 2012, (the day after the close of the original comment period) and the date of this notice.
21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type Certificate Previously Held by Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.) Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a review that determined that the runway slope and anti-ice corrections to V
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Groves, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1503; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness Directive 01-12-02-02, dated March 2, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
This [Israeli] AD mandates revised limitations in the G150 AFM, pertaining to the Performance Section. Each operator must incorporate Temporary Rev.3 to the G150 AFM.
Gulfstream has issued Gulfstream G150 Temporary Revision 3, dated December 14, 2011, to Section V, Performance, of the Gulfstream G150 AFM. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 56 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,760, or $85 per product.
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.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by November 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type Certificate previously held by Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.) Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 01, Operations information.
This AD was prompted by a review that determined that the runway slope and anti-ice corrections to V
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise Section V, Performance, of the Gulfstream G150 AFM to include the information in Gulfstream G150 Temporary Revision 3, dated December 14, 2011. This TR introduces corrections for runway slope. Operate the airplane according to the procedures in the TR.
This may be done by inserting copies of Gulfstream G150 TR Revision 3, dated December 14, 2011, in the AFM. When this TR has been included in general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in Gulfstream G150 TR Revision 3, dated December 14, 2011, and the TR may be removed.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1) Refer to MCAI Israeli Airworthiness Directive 01-12-02-02, dated March 2, 2012; and Gulfstream G150 TR Revision 3, dated December 14, 2011, to Section V, Performance of the Gulfstream G150 AFM; for related information.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email pubs@gulfstream.com; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, 737-400, 737-500, and 757-200 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of damage caused by electrical arcing to the wires that connect seat electronics boxes (SEBs). This proposed AD would require installing a new relay and doing certain wiring changes of the entertainment control switch if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent power from being supplied to passenger seats when the entertainment control switch is in the OFF position, which could cause an electrical shock hazard resulting in serious or fatal injury to maintenance personnel.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Binh Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6485; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of an electrical arcing from a seat track cover. An investigation found that there was damage to the wires that connect SEBs caused by electrical arcing at a terminator. The airplane manufacturer found that the entertainment control switch has no effect on removing electrical power from the SEBs. This condition, if not corrected, could supply power when the entertainment control switch is in the OFF position, which could cause an electrical shock hazard resulting in serious or fatal injury to maintenance personnel.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-23-1302, dated August 24, 2009 (for Model 737-300, -400, -500 series airplanes); and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-23-0107, Revision 1, dated May 16, 2012 (for Model 757-200 series airplanes). The service information describes procedures for installing a new relay and doing certain wiring changes of the entertainment control switch if necessary.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Note 1 in Paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-23-1302, dated August 24, 2009, allows the sequence of steps to be changed. This proposed AD would not allow the step sequence to be changed.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 28 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by November 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-23-1302, dated August 24, 2009; and Model 757-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-23-0107, Revision 1, dated May 16, 2012.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 23, Communications.
This AD was prompted by a report of damage caused by electrical arcing to the wires that connect seat electronics boxes. We are issuing this AD to prevent power from being supplied to passenger seats when the entertainment control switch is in the OFF position, which could cause an electrical shock hazard resulting in serious or fatal injury to maintenance personnel.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Change the wire bundle route, and install a new relay and applicable wiring of the entertainment control switch, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: Use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-23-1302, dated August 24, 2009.
(2) For Model 757-200 series airplanes: Use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-23-0107, Revision 1, dated May 16, 2012.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Binh Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6485; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that, during a flight test, several spoiler servo-controls (SSCs) did not remain locked in the retracted position (hydraulic locking function) after manual depressurization of the corresponding hydraulic circuit. Loss of that locking function—which is ensured by a blocking valve—was caused by an internal leak from a sheared seal on the blocking valve. This proposed AD would require inspecting to determine if certain SSCs are installed, performing an operational test of any affected SSC, and replacing if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of the hydraulic locking function during take-off and go-around phases, which, in combination with malfunction of one engine, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0009, dated January 13, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Two operators have reported that several spoilers did not remain locked in the retracted position (lifted up without order) after manual depressurization of the corresponding hydraulic circuit during flight test.
Subsequent checks on ground confirmed that, for each affected spoiler surface, the spoiler was fitted with one MZ-type Spoiler Servo Control (SSC) (Part Number (P/N) MZ4339390-12 or P/N MZ4306000-12).
The results of the investigations on the affected SSCs, done by the supplier, revealed that the loss of the hydraulic locking function—which is ensured by a blocking valve—was due to an internal leakage caused by a sheared seal. This seal is installed at the left end of the blocking valve.
During the on-wing modification of the maintenance cover, blocking valve movement may have damaged the seal on the outer diameter of the blocking valve assembly, causing the loss of the hydraulic locking function.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, if occurring during take-off and go-around phases in combination with one engine inoperative, could jeopardize the aeroplane safe flight.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the identification of the installed SSCs, to perform an operational test of the hydraulic locking function of the affected SSCs and to accomplish the applicable corrective actions if any discrepancy is detected during the operational test. This [EASA] AD also requires reporting operational test results to Airbus.
On August 26, 2009, the FAA issued AD 2009-18-20, Amendment 39-16017 (74 FR 46313, September 9, 2009), applicable to certain Airbus Model A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. That AD requires identifying the part number of spoiler servo-controls installed on the airplane at all positions to determine the number of affected hydraulic circuits, and modifying affected spoiler servo-controls. The actions required by that AD are intended to prevent loss of the three hydraulic systems, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Airbus has issued All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-27A3185 and AOT A340-27A4181, both dated January 4, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Unlike the procedures recommended in Airbus AOTs A330-27A3185 and A340-27A4181, both dated January 4, 2012, this proposed AD would not permit further flight after a faulty SSC is detected on the green or yellow hydraulic line. Instead, this proposed AD would require replacing the SSC with a new or serviceable SSC before further flight. We find that, to achieve an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet, damaged SSCs must be replaced before further flight.
Although the MCAI mandates performing the operational test within 90 days after the effective date of the AD, we have determined that the operational test should be performed within 90 days after identification of the part.
These differences have been coordinated with EASA.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 61 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take up to 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $36,295, or $595 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 36 work-hours and require parts costing $34,928, for a cost of $37,988 per affected SSC. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined 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.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by November 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports that, during flight test, several spoiler servo-controls (SSCs) did not remain locked in the retracted position (hydraulic locking function) after manual depressurization of the corresponding hydraulic circuit. Loss of that locking function—which is ensured by a blocking valve—was caused by an internal leak from a sheared seal on the blocking valve. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the hydraulic locking function during take-off and go-around phases, which, in combination with malfunction of one engine, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect to determine the part number (P/N) of all SSCs installed, in accordance with Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-27A3185 (for Model A330-300 series airplanes) or A340-27A4181 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes), both dated January 4, 2012. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the inspection to identify the part number of the SSC installed, provided that part number can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) For any SSC having P/N MZ4339390-12 or P/N MZ4306000-12 (MZ-type): Within 90 days after identification of the part, perform an operational test of the hydraulic locking function at each position fitted with an MZ-type SSC, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus AOT A330-27A3185 (for Model A330-300 series airplanes) or A340-27A4181 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes), both dated January 4, 2012.
(2) If any discrepancy is detected during the operational test specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, or if the test fails, before further flight, replace the affected SSC with a new or serviceable SSC, in accordance with Airbus AOT A330-27A3185 (for Model A330-300 series airplanes) or A340-27A4181 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes), both dated January 4, 2012.
Submit a report of the findings of the operational test required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD (both positive and negative) to Airbus, Customer Services, Engineering and Technical Support, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France, Attn: Daniel Lopez-Fernandez, SEEL6; fax: (+33) 5 61 93 04 52; email:
(1) If the test was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the test.
(2) If the test was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012-0009, dated January 13, 2012, and the service information specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD, for related information.
(i) Airbus AOT A330-27A3185, dated January 4, 2012.
(ii) Airbus AOT A340-27A4181, dated January 4, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections of the aft attach lugs of the elevator tab control mechanisms, and replacement of any discrepant elevator tab control mechanism. Since we issued that AD, Boeing has developed a modification of the aft attach lugs of the elevator tab control mechanisms, which will adequately address the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would require replacing the left and right elevator tab control mechanisms with elevator tab control mechanisms that have the modified attach lugs, which would terminate the existing requirements. We are proposing this AD to prevent discrepancies in the aft attach lugs of the elevator tab control mechanism, which could result in severe elevator and tab vibration. Consequent structural failure of the elevator or horizontal stabilizer could result in loss of structural integrity and aircraft control.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6490; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On August 11, 2010, we issued AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010), for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections of the aft attach lugs of the elevator tab control mechanisms, and replacement of any discrepant elevator tab control mechanism. That AD was prompted by reports of failure of the aft attach lugs on the elevator tab control mechanisms, which resulted in severe elevator vibration. That AD also was prompted by reports of gaps in elevator tab control mechanisms and analysis that additional elevator tab control mechanisms might have bearings that will come loose. We issued that AD to detect and correct discrepancies in the aft attach lugs of the elevator tab control mechanism, which could result in elevator and tab vibration. Consequent structural failure of the elevator or horizontal stabilizer could result in loss of structural integrity and aircraft control.
The preamble to AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010), specifies that we consider the requirements “interim action” and that the manufacturer is developing a modification to address the unsafe condition. That AD explains that we might consider further rulemaking if a modification is developed, approved, and available. The manufacturer now has developed such a modification, and we have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1300, dated April 16, 2012, which describes procedures for replacing elevator tab control mechanisms that have sheet metal aft attach lugs with elevator tab control mechanisms that have new machined aft attach lugs.
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1300, dated April 16, 2012, has been approved as an alternative method of compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (t) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010).
The elevator tab control mechanism is incorrectly identified as the “elevator control tab mechanism” in certain
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). This proposed AD would also require replacement of the left and right elevator tab control mechanisms with elevator tab control mechanisms that have new machined aft attach lugs, which would terminate the existing requirements.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,096 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have 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.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010), and adding the following new AD:
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 5, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the aft attach lugs on the elevator tab control mechanisms, which resulted in severe elevator vibration. This AD also results from reports of gaps in elevator tab control mechanisms and analysis that additional elevator tab control mechanisms might have bearings that will come loose. We are issuing this AD to prevent discrepancies in the aft attach lugs of the elevator tab control mechanism, which could result in severe elevator and tab vibration. Consequent structural failure of the elevator or horizontal stabilizer could result in loss of structural integrity and aircraft control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010), with revised terminating action. For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, within 12 days after
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010), with a terminating action provision. For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010: Beginning 7 days after April 29, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-09-05), no person may operate an airplane on an extended twin operations (ETOPS) flight unless the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been accomplished. Doing the inspection required by paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010), with revised terminating action provisions. For Group 2, Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010: Within 30 days after April 29, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-09-05), do a one-time detailed inspection for discrepancies of the inboard and outboard aft attach lugs of the left and right elevator tab control mechanisms, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010. Doing the inspection required by paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010). If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (i), or (k) of this AD, any discrepancy is found, before further flight, replace the elevator tab control mechanism by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the replacement elevator tab control mechanism; and, if no discrepancy is found, install the replacement elevator tab control mechanism; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010. If any discrepancy is found, then that elevator tab control mechanism cannot be installed and the actions specified in this paragraph must be done before further flight on another replacement elevator tab control mechanism.
(2) Re-inspect the installed elevator tab control mechanism using the inspection procedure specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (q) of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010), with revised terminating action provisions. For Group 2, Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010, on which the elevator tab control mechanism is replaced with a mechanism other than a new, Boeing-built mechanism: Within 300 flight hours after doing the replacement, do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the inboard and outboard aft attach lugs of the left and right elevator tab control mechanisms, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours. Doing the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD before September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010)), is terminating action for this paragraph. Doing the inspection required by paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (r) of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010), with revised terminating action provisions. Replacing an elevator tab control mechanism with a new, Boeing-built mechanism before September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010)), as specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g), (i), and (k) of this AD. Replacement of the elevator tab control mechanism on or after September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19), does not terminate the inspections required by paragraphs (g), (i), and (k) of this AD.
Additional guidance can be found in paragraphs 3.B.7.b.(1)(a)1) and 3.B.7.b.(1)(a)2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010, for establishing whether the mechanism is Boeing-built.
(1) Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the new, Boeing-built replacement elevator tab control mechanism; and, if no discrepancy is found, install the replacement elevator tab control mechanism; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010. If any discrepancy is found, then that elevator tab control mechanism cannot be installed and the actions specified in this paragraph must be done on another new, Boeing-built replacement elevator tab control mechanism.
(2) Re-inspect the installed elevator tab control mechanism using the inspection procedure specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (s) of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010). For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, submit a report of any findings (positive and negative) of the first inspection required by paragraphs (g), (i), and (k) of this AD, and any positive findings from the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (k) of this AD, to Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group, Attention: Manager, Airline Support, email:
(1) If the inspection was done on or after April 29, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010)): Submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before April 29, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-09-05, Amendment 39-16270 (75 FR 21499, April 26, 2010)): Submit the report within 10 days after April 29, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-09-05).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3909 inclusive: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1), (n)(2), or (n)(3) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the inboard and outboard aft attach lugs of the left and right elevator tab control mechanisms, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010. For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours, except as provided by paragraph (t)(2) of this AD. For Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,800 flight hours, except as required by paragraphs (p) and (t)(2) of this AD. Doing the inspection specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010: Within 300 flight hours after doing an inspection in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010, or within 30 days after September 9, 2010
(2) For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 2,000 total flight cycles or 4,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 14 days after September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010)).
(3) For Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010: Within 180 days or 1,800 flight hours after September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010)), whichever occurs first.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). If, during any inspection required by paragraph (n) or (p) of this AD, any discrepancy is found, before further flight, replace the elevator tab control mechanism by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the replacement elevator tab control mechanism; and, if no discrepancy is found, install the replacement elevator tab control mechanism; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010. If any discrepancy is found, then that elevator tab control mechanism cannot be installed and the actions specified in this paragraph must be done before further flight on another replacement elevator tab control mechanism.
(2) Re-inspect the installed elevator tab control mechanism using the inspection procedure specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). For Group 3 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010, on which the elevator tab control mechanism is replaced during the actions required by paragraph (o) of this AD: Within 300 flight hours after doing the replacement, do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the inboard and outboard aft attach lugs of the replaced elevator tab control mechanism, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010. Repeat the inspection of the replaced elevator tab control mechanism thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours, except as provided by paragraph (t)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (q) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010: Inspections done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010, are acceptable for compliance with only the initial inspection required by paragraph (n) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (r) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3909 inclusive: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (r)(1) or (r)(2) of this AD, submit a report of any findings (positive and negative) of the first inspection required by paragraphs (n) and (p) of this AD, except for airplanes on which a report required by paragraph (m) of this AD has been submitted, only submit positive findings; and submit a report of any positive findings from the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (n) and (p) of this AD; to Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group, Attention: Manager, Airline Support, email:
(1) If the inspection was done on or after September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010)): Submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010)): Submit the report within 10 days after September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19).
This paragraph restates the provision specified in paragraph (s) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, dated April 16, 2010; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1297, Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010; specify to return the affected elevator tab control mechanism to the manufacturer, this AD does not require the return of the part to the manufacturer.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (t) of AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010). As of September 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-17-19), and until the effective date of this new AD, comply with the conditions specified in paragraphs (t)(1) and (t)(2) of this AD.
(1) No person may install an elevator tab control mechanism, part number 251A2430-(), on any airplane, unless the mechanism has been inspected before and after installation using the inspection procedures specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD, and no discrepancies have been found.
(2) An elevator tab control mechanism, part number 251A2430-(), may be installed, provided that the inspection specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done within 300 flight hours after doing the installation, and that the inspection specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is repeated thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours.
For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3909 inclusive: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right elevator tab control mechanisms with elevator tab control mechanisms that have new machined aft attach lugs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1300, dated April 16, 2012. This replacement terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (t) of this AD.
For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an elevator tab control mechanism having P/N 251A2430-13, -14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -101, -102, -103, -104, -105, or -106.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2010-17-19, Amendment 39-16413 (75 FR 52242, August 25, 2010), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6490; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of chafing damage to a wire bundle that was arcing to hydraulic tubing and caused by insufficient separation between the wire bundle and the hydraulic tubing in the main landing gear (MLG) wheel well. This proposed AD would require an inspection for damage of wire bundles and hydraulic tubing on the right side of the forward bulkhead of the MLG wheel well; installation of new clamps; and corrective actions, as applicable. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct possible damage caused by insufficient separation between the wire bundles and hydraulic tubing to prevent electrical arcing in a flammable fluid leakage zone, which could lead to a wheel well fire.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6418; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of a Model 737-800 airplane that was found with the circuit breaker of the #2 engine spar valve open. Maintenance found that a wire had chafed and was arcing to a hydraulic line. The chafing condition was caused by inadequate separation between the wire bundle and the hydraulic line. Boeing inspected additional airplanes in production and found that there was not sufficient separation, based on design requirements, between the wire bundles and adjacent hydraulic tubing at that location. Wire chafing damage and electrical arcing in a flammable fluid leakage zone could lead to a wheel well fire.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-29-1113, dated March 23, 2011. That service bulletin describes procedures for a general visual inspection for damage of wire bundles W6128, W7122, W8122, and W8222 and hydraulic tubing part numbers (P/Ns) 272A4451-136 and 272A4451-137, installation of new clamps between the wire bundles and the adjacent hydraulic tubing, and corrective actions as applicable. Corrective actions include repairing damaged wire bundles and replacing or repairing damaged hydraulic tubing.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
The applicability of the proposed AD differs from paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-29-1113, dated March 23, 2011, to be consistent with the effectivity specified in a correction provided in Boeing Information Notice (IN) 737-29-1113 IN 01, dated May 20, 2011.
Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-29-1113, dated March 23, 2011 specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this proposed AD would require compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 520 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide labor cost estimates for the on-condition actions (repairing or replacing of damaged wire bundles and damaged hydraulic tubing) specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by November 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; line numbers (L/Ns) 1060 through 3347 excluding L/Ns 3138, 3158, 3169, 3175, 3216, 3224, 3253, 3274, 3290 to 3293 inclusive, and 3295 to 3347 inclusive.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29: Hydraulic Power.
This AD was prompted by a report of chafing damage to a wire bundle that was arcing to hydraulic tubing and caused by insufficient separation between the wire bundle and the hydraulic tubing in the main landing gear (MLG) wheel well. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct possible damage caused by insufficient separation between the wire bundles and hydraulic tubing to prevent electrical arcing in a flammable fluid leakage zone, which could lead to a wheel well fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of hydraulic tubing having part numbers (P/Ns) 272A4451-136 and 272A4451-137, and wire bundles W6128, W7122, W8122, and W8222 for wire chafing or damage, install new clamps in the right MLG wheel well, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-29-1113, dated March
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6418; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, -243, -302, -323, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-313 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that a specific batch of cargo doors might have deviations in quality related to door structure, such as irregular bore holes, improper application of sealant and paint, or uncleanliness. This proposed AD would require inspecting to identify the part and serial numbers of the forward and aft cargo doors, and replacing the affected cargo doors. We are proposing this AD to prevent the degraded structural capability of the cargo door, a primary structure, from leading to failure of the door, which could lead to a breach through the door or the door detaching from the airplane, resulting in potential rapid decompression.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0177, dated September 15, 2011 (corrected September 28, 2011) (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Investigations have shown that a specific batch of cargo doors might have deviations in
This condition, if not corrected, may degrade the structural integrity of the affected Forward (Fwd) and Aft cargo doors.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection to identify the [part and serial numbers of the] Fwd and Aft cargo doors, and replacement of the affected cargo doors.
Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-52-3083 (for affected Model A330 airplanes) and A340-52-4093 (for Model A340-313 airplanes), both dated May 31, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,020, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 52 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $4,420 per product; the manufacturer has agreed to reimburse these labor costs. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by November 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model A330-202, -203, -223, -243, -302, -323, -342, and -343 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) 0796, 0832, 0840, 0845, 0849, 0853, 0855, 0861, 0862, 0866, 0868, 0871, 0873, 0876, 0879, 0882, 0885, 0887, 0889, 0891, 0892, 0896, 0898, 0899, 0903, 0904, 0905, 0907, 0913, 0927, 0930, 0935, 0936, 0937, 0940, 0943, 0944, 0946, 0949, 0952, 0954, 0964, 0971, 0975, 0982 through 0986 inclusive, 0988, 0989, 0990, 0992, 0994, 0995, 0997, 0998, 0999, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1006, 1007, 1009 through 1016 inclusive, 1018, 1020, 1022, 1023, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1037, 1045, 1049, 1052, 1053, 1055, 1058, 1060, 1061, 1065 through 1067 inclusive, 1071 through 1075 inclusive, 1077, 1080, and 1082.
(2) Model A340-313 airplane, MSN 0955.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52: Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports that a specific batch of cargo doors might have deviations in quality related to door structure, such as irregular bore holes, improper application of sealant and paint, or uncleanliness. We are issuing this AD to prevent the degraded structural capability of the cargo door, a primary structure, from leading to failure of the door, which could detach from the airplane or have a breach through the door, resulting in potential rapid decompression.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Inspect to identify the part number and serial number of the airplane's forward and aft cargo doors, as applicable to MSN, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A330 airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 airplanes). A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the door can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 7,400 total flight cycles, or 72 months after the airplane's first flight, whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the part number and serial number of the airplane's forward and/or aft cargo doors, as applicable to airplane MSN, are identified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A330 airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 airplanes): Before further flight, replace the affected door with a new or serviceable door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, there is any discrepancy between the installed forward and/or aft cargo doors part/serial number and the airplane MSN, as that part/serial number and MSN are identified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A330 airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 airplanes): Within 10 days after accomplishing the inspection, contact the FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent), for further instructions and time limits, and accomplish those instructions within the specified time limits.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a forward or aft cargo door that was removed from any airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0177, dated September 15, 2011 (corrected September 28, 2011), and the service information identified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, for related information.
(1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-52-3083, dated May 31, 2011.
(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-52-4093, dated May 31, 2011.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Based on comments received in response to its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”), the Federal Trade Commission proposes to amend its trade regulation rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods as Amended (“Rule”) to: Allow garment manufacturers and marketers to include instructions for professional wetcleaning on labels; permit the use of ASTM Standard D5489-07, “Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products,” or ISO 3758:2005(E), “Textiles—Care labelling code using symbols,” in lieu of terms; clarify what can constitute a reasonable basis for care instructions; and update the definition of “dryclean.” In addition, the Commission seeks comment on several other issues.
Written comments must be received on or before November 16, 2012. Parties interested in an opportunity to present views orally should submit a request to do so as explained below, and such requests must be received on or before November 16, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Robert M. Frisby, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2098.
The Commission finds that using expedited procedures in this rulemaking will serve the public interest. Specifically, they support the Commission's goals of clarifying and updating existing regulations without undue expenditure of resources, while ensuring that the public has an opportunity to submit data, views, and arguments on whether the Commission should amend the Rule. Because written comments should adequately present the views of all interested parties, the Commission is not scheduling a public hearing or workshop. However, if any person would like to present views orally, he or she should follow the procedures set forth in the
The Rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to sell these items without attaching labels stating the care needed for the ordinary use of the product.
The Commission promulgated the Rule in 1971 and has amended it three times since.
In 2000, the Commission rejected two proposed amendments. First, the Commission did not require labels with instructions for home washing on items that one can safely wash at home, because the evidence was not sufficiently compelling to justify this change and the benefits of the proposed change were highly uncertain.
As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) in July 2011 seeking comment on the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the Rule; the benefits of the Rule to consumers; and the burdens the Rule places on businesses.
This NPRM summarizes the comments received by the Commission, explains the Commission's decision to retain the Rule, proposes several amendments to the Rule, and explains why the Commission has declined to propose certain amendments.
The Commission received 120 comments in response to the ANPR.
All but two of the numerous comments that addressed retention of the Rule favored it.
While the comments indicate widespread support for the Rule, most argued that the Commission should update or expand it in various ways. In particular, many comments urged the Commission to address professional wetcleaning by either requiring or allowing manufacturers to disclose a wetcleaning instruction. Still others urged the Commission to update the Rule's provisions allowing the use of care symbols by incorporating the latest ASTM or International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) care symbol standards, allowing manufacturers to follow either standard, or adopting new symbols for professional cleaning. Several comments requested clarification of the Rule's reasonable basis provisions or imposition of testing requirements on manufacturers. Others advocated updating the definition of “dryclean” and the Appendix to reflect the development of new solvents and cleaning technologies and practices. Some comments urged the Commission to require manufacturers to disclose all appropriate methods of care on labels. Further, some comments urged the Commission to amend the Rule to require the disclosure of additional information such as fiber content or more detailed care instructions, to disallow certain instructions currently permitted by the Rule, or to impose additional obligations. Several comments addressed disclosures made in multiple languages.
Slightly more than half of the 120 comments received by the Commission stated or implied that the Commission should permit, or require, a professional wetcleaning instruction on garments that can be wetcleaned. Wetcleaning is an alternative to drycleaning and involves professionals cleaning products in water using special technology (cleaning, rinsing, and spinning), detergents, and additives to minimize adverse effects, followed by appropriate drying and restorative finishing procedures. Of the comments addressing this issue, only three expressed concerns.
First, they touted the economic, health, and environmental benefits of wetcleaning. For example, based on its analysis of scientific literature on the health and environmental impacts of drycleaning solvents, and its review of operational costs and compliance-related impacts, the San Francisco Department of the Environment determined that professional wetcleaning is the most environmentally-preferable professional cleaning option.
Second, several comments explained that the number of cleaners providing professional wetcleaning has increased and that consumers increasingly use or prefer it. Two trade associations reported that professional wetcleaning is now widespread in the industry.
Several comments provided data on the number of cleaners providing wetcleaning and the number of garments they clean. For example, one comment stated that over 200 perc drycleaners in California have switched to wetcleaning and successfully cleaned the full range of garments they previously drycleaned.
Other comments cited the experience of individual cleaners that increasingly replace drycleaning with wetcleaning. For example, one comment from a cleaning business stated that wetcleaning is becoming common, and that it wetcleans approximately 65%-80% of the clothes it washes.
Several comments noted the development of industry standard care
Finally, several comments argued that the Rule's failure to address wetcleaning places professional wetcleaners and equipment vendors at a competitive disadvantage and discourages greater use of wetcleaning.
The comments urging the Commission to amend the Rule to address wetcleaning differ on whether the Commission should require a wetcleaning instruction or merely permit one. Moreover, many urge the Commission to address wetcleaning without specifying exactly how. Of those comments taking a position, the vast majority favored amending the Rule to require a professional wetcleaning instruction if the garment can be wetcleaned.
In addition, several commenters that do not appear to manufacture or market apparel argued that the benefits of requiring a wetcleaning instruction would exceed the added labeling and testing costs to manufacturers. One comment explained that the vast majority of manufacturers use experience and expertise to determine the care label.
A smaller number of comments indicated that they favored amending the Rule to permit, but not require, a wetcleaning instruction. One comment argued that allowing the instruction on labeling will reconfirm to the public that this method is accepted and safe and encourage manufacturers to produce more garments that do not need to be cleaned in a solvent.
Many comments simply urged the Commission to address wetcleaning without specifying how.
With a few exceptions, the comments addressing the use of symbols to provide care instructions favored their continued use.
A number of comments expressed support for harmonizing the ASTM symbols allowed under the Rule with those used internationally.
Still others favored acceptance of ISO or internationally-accepted symbols without addressing the ASTM symbols.
GreenEarth Cleaning (“GreenEarth”) advocated a different approach to disclosing professional cleaning instructions. It argued that the ASTM and ISO professional cleaning symbols are inadequate because they are based on particular solvents rather than solvent characteristics.
In addition to proposing new symbols, GreenEarth advocated parallel changes to the “overarching nomenclature and the guiding principle” behind the Rule, to improve the reliability and understandability of care labels.
Two comments addressed the presentation of symbols. One argued that the current system works well, but that some uniformity regarding location, size, composition, and font size would greatly help the industry.
Four comments argued that the Commission should clarify or strengthen the Rule's provision requiring manufacturers to have a reasonable basis for care instructions. One urged the Commission to strengthen the reasonable basis requirements and hold manufacturers accountable to individual consumers for inappropriate care instructions.
Several comments urged the Commission to update the Rule's definition of “dryclean,” as well as the Appendix. One comment urged the Commission to adopt a broader definition of “dryclean.”
Four comments from cleaners similarly argued that the current definition of drycleaning is very limiting.
Two comments urged the Commission to revise Appendix A. One advised that Appendix A of the Rule diverges from ASTM D5489, although it did not identify how or explain why amendments are warranted.
Several comments from the cleaning industry urged the Commission to amend the Rule to require manufacturers to include instructions on all appropriate methods of care.
Some comments proposed amending the Rule to require additional disclosures, disallow certain care instructions currently allowed by the Rule, address the format or composition of labels, expand the scope of the Rule, or impose additional requirements. Additionally, several comments addressed the use of multiple languages on care labels.
Five comments urged the Commission to require disclosure of fiber, fabric, or component content.
Other comments urged the Commission to require more detailed care instructions or disclosure of additional information related to care.
One comment proposed that the Rule provide that the care instruction indicate the maximum treatment that can be applied to the item.
Moreover, one comment argued that care tags could be replaced or made much smaller and simpler with the use of a unique identifier for every garment, such as a barcode, QR code, or an RFID chip.
Another comment addressed disclosure of an item's point of origin. It urged the Commission to require disclosure of the state for items allowed a “made in the United States” label.
Other comments argued that the Commission should disallow certain care instructions that they view as providing little, if any, benefit to consumers, or to otherwise limit care instructions. One comment argued that all garments should be serviceable, and opposed “Do not wash. Do not dryclean” labels.
Two comments addressed the format or composition of the labels required by the Rule. One argued that labels should be a standard size, printed on white material only, using stable black ink, non-soluble in water and drycleaning solvents.
Two comments addressed the scope of the Rule. One argued that the Rule
Four comments favored imposing additional obligations under the Rule other than labeling. One urged the establishment of an electronic database for reporting insufficient or incorrect labeling so consumers can research problems.
Finally, several comments argued that the Rule should not require multiple language disclosures.
The record shows wide support for the Rule from all the major industries affected by its provisions as well as from consumers. Among other things, comments supporting the Rule explained that it benefits consumers, manufacturers, and businesses in general and provides valuable guidance on care to consumers and the fabricare industry.
Two comments opposing the Rule, one filed by GINETEX and the other by a retailer, failed to provide any tangible evidence to support their assertions.
In light of the many stakeholder comments expressing support for the Rule, the Commission concludes that a continuing need exists for the Rule and that the Rule imposes reasonable costs on the industry. The Commission therefore concludes that the weight of the record evidence clearly supports retention of the Rule.
Many of the comments supporting the Rule also advocated various amendments. Accordingly, based on the comments and the evidence discussed herein, the Commission proposes to amend the Rule in the following four ways.
As noted above, in 2000, the Commission declined to amend the Rule to permit a “Professionally Wetclean” instruction on labels. The Commission stated that it would consider permitting such an instruction if a more specific definition and/or test procedure were developed that provided manufacturers with a reasonable basis for a wetcleaning instruction.
The record now shows that these conditions have been met. ISO has developed ISO 3175-4:2003, “Textiles—Professional care, drycleaning and wetcleaning of fabrics and garments—Part 4: Procedure for testing performance when cleaning and finishing using simulated wetcleaning.” This standard includes a definition of wetcleaning and test procedures for determining whether apparel can be wetcleaned professionally. Several comments favoring a wetcleaning instruction cited this standard approvingly.
As described in Section II.A, the record shows widespread support for amending the Rule to include professional wetcleaning. Many comments explained the economic, environmental, and health benefits of wetcleaning. They also noted the increasing industry acceptance and use of wetcleaning, the inclusion of wetcleaning symbols in both the ASTM and ISO care symbol systems, and the risk that failing to allow an instruction could place wetcleaners at a disadvantage, thereby discouraging its use despite its advantages. The increasing industry acceptance and use of wetcleaning and the inclusion of wetcleaning symbols in both the ASTM and ISO systems establish the prevalence of wetcleaning. Only three comments expressed reservations, and none of them provided evidence that amending the Rule would harm consumers or that the cost of doing so would exceed the benefits.
While the record supports permitting a professional wetcleaning instruction, it does not warrant requiring such an instruction. None of the comments provided evidence that the absence of a wetcleaning instruction for products that can be wetcleaned would result in deception or unfairness under the FTC Act. Nor did they provide evidence that the benefits of requiring a wetcleaning instruction would exceed the costs such a requirement would impose on manufacturers and importers.
Based on this record, the Commission concludes that permitting a professional wetcleaning instruction would provide consumers with useful information regarding the care of the apparel they purchase. Therefore, the Commission proposes adding a definition of “wetclean” based on the definition of “professional wet cleaning” set forth in ISO 3758:2005(E). Specifically, proposed section 423.1(h) would state that “wetclean” means a commercial process for cleaning products or specimens in water carried out by professionals using special technology (cleaning, rinsing, and spinning), detergents, and additives to minimize adverse effects, followed by appropriate drying and restorative finishing procedures.
This definition closely tracks the definition in a widely-used international standard cited approvingly in comments. Thus, the Commission concludes that the definition would provide manufacturers and importers with sufficient guidance to distinguish wetcleaning from other cleaning processes, thereby helping them to determine whether they have enough evidence to provide a wetcleaning instruction or a warning not to wetclean, if they choose to do so. The Commission also proposes to amend Appendix A by including this definition as set forth in the proposed amendment in the last section of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
In addition to defining “wetclean,” the Commission proposes amending section 423.6(b) to add a wetcleaning subsection, as set forth in the proposed amendment in the last section of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. To harmonize with international standards, the proposed subsection states that any wetcleaning instruction must indicate whether to use a normal, mild or very mild process and disclose fiber content if needed to select the appropriate wetcleaning process. These amendments bring the Rule in line with both the ASTM and ISO symbol systems, and ISO 3758:2005(E)'s fiber disclosure.
This proposed amendment would not impose any new obligations on manufacturers or importers. They could choose to provide a wetcleaning instruction if they have a reasonable basis for it and wish to do so. They also could provide a different instruction, such as a drycleaning or washing instruction.
The proposal, however, would require manufacturers and importers currently labeling items with a “dryclean only” instruction either to substantiate that wetcleaning is an inappropriate method of care or to revise their labels. Revised labels stating “dryclean” would comply with the Rule. Manufacturers and importers who wished to convey to consumers that home laundering would damage the garment could, if they wished, label the garment as “dryclean/do not home wash,” but would comply with the Rule if they disclosed just the cleaning method (in this example, drycleaning) known to produce safe results. Manufacturers and importers could continue to use the “dryclean only” label only if they could substantiate that both home laundering and professional wetcleaning were inappropriate methods for cleaning the garment.
The Rule permits manufacturers and importers to use care symbols set forth in ASTM Standard 5489-96c, “Guide to Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Consumer Textile Products.” Since the Commission last amended the Rule in 2000, ASTM has updated this standard to ASTM D5489-07, “Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products.” The Rule currently does not permit the use of this updated, or any other non-ASTM symbol system in lieu of terms.
Nearly all of the comments addressing the issue favored allowing the use of symbols in lieu of terms. Some favored amending the Rule to reference ASTM D5489-07, the most recent version of the ASTM standard, or ASTM D5489 without designating the year so that the Rule would automatically reference the latest version of the standard. Still others favored allowing the use of the symbol system developed by ISO. Several urged the Commission to amend the Rule to harmonize the ASTM symbols permitted by the Rule with those set forth in the ISO standard or to allow manufacturers and importers to use either symbol system. None of the comments expressed a preference for the ASTM symbol system currently referenced in the Rule. Nor did any of the comments oppose the harmonization of the ASTM and ISO symbols.
The record supports: (1) Continuing to allow the use of ASTM care symbols in lieu of terms, (2) updating the Rule to reference the 2007 version of the ASTM standard, and (3) permitting the use of the ASTM and ISO symbols. The Commission concludes that permitting the use of the symbol system in either the updated ASTM standard, ASTM D5489-07, or ISO 3758:2005(E) would ensure that manufacturers and importers that choose to use symbols in lieu of terms will use them consistent
Because the ASTM and ISO symbol systems are not identical, consumers may need to know which system appears on the label so that they can ascertain or confirm the meaning of a particular symbol. Furthermore, permitting the use of two symbol systems could increase the risk of consumer confusion. Therefore, the Commission proposes requiring that manufacturers or importers opting to disclose care instructions using the ISO symbols disclose that they are using ISO symbols. The Commission does not propose requiring a similar disclosure on labels using the ASTM symbols because the Rule already permits the use of ASTM symbols without requiring any such disclosure. For example, consumers might have a greater familiarity with the ASTM symbols than with the ISO symbols because the Rule started permitting them in 1997. On the other hand, that may not be the case. The Commission seeks comment on this issue, including on the extent to which care labels currently include ASTM and ISO symbols.
Permitting the use of either symbol system should not confuse or deceive consumers because the symbol systems are nearly identical. Although the ASTM system includes more symbols than the ISO system,
Although the two systems differ slightly with respect to drying and ironing symbols, the differences do not appear substantial. ASTM has more symbols for drying, and the ASTM symbol for medium temperature drying means normal temperature drying in the ISO system. The ASTM system includes a “no steam” symbol for ironing while the ISO symbol for low heat, unlike the ASTM symbol for low heat, indicates that steam ironing may cause irreversible damage. If a manufacturer or importer concludes that one of the systems has symbols that more effectively convey the proper care instructions, it can choose to use that system.
The Commission notes that the meaning of one ASTM drycleaning symbol changed significantly in the revised ASTM standard. The old symbol, a circle with the letter “P” inside, means dryclean with any solvent except perc. Under the revised standard, the symbol means dryclean with perc or petroleum. Although potentially confusing, this change does not seem likely to harm consumers who understand the meaning of the symbol at the time they purchase the product.
However, even if consumers understand the symbol at the time of purchase, confusion could result with respect to: (1) Products labeled before, but sold after, the symbol system change; and (2) situations where the consumer does not remember whether he or she purchased the product before or after the symbol change. The change in the symbol's meaning could also cause confusion if drycleaners do not know whether the garment was labeled before the change. Of course, notwithstanding the change in symbol meaning, consumers and drycleaners can avoid any risk of using an inappropriate solvent by using petroleum rather than perc to dryclean the product (under both the old and new meaning, the symbol indicates that petroleum can be used). The Commission seeks comment on these issues.
As explained above, a comment from GreenEarth urged the Commission to replace the ASTM and ISO symbols with new symbols based on a solvent's aggressiveness rather than type.
Finally, Section 423.8(g) states that, for the 18-month period beginning on July 1, 1997, symbols may be used in lieu of terms only if an explanation of the symbols is attached to, or provided with, the product. This provision has expired; therefore, the Commission proposes to remove it from the Rule.
To implement the revisions described above, the Commission proposes amending Section 423.8(g) as set forth in the proposed amendment in the last section of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
One of the comments urged the Commission to update the Rule by referring to the ASTM standard without identifying the year or version of the standard. The comment argued that, if the Commission amended the Rule in this way, the Rule would always incorporate the most recent ASTM standard. The Commission declines to follow this approach because it would, in effect, grant ASTM the power to revise a Commission Rule. If ASTM
As noted above, the Rule requires that manufacturers and importers possess a reasonable basis for the care instructions they provide prior to sale. Under the Rule, a reasonable basis must consist of reliable evidence supporting the instructions on the label.
Several comments summarized in Section II.C above urged the Commission to impose more rigorous testing requirements or to clarify the Rule's reasonable basis requirements. These comments explained that some manufacturers and importers appear not to understand the Rule's reasonable basis requirements. No comment provided specific suggestions.
The record is devoid of evidence showing that any manufacturers or importers improperly relied on evidence other than testing, that particular testing was inadequate or flawed, or that the benefits of requiring additional or more rigorous testing to ensure better care instructions would exceed the costs to manufacturers and importers. The mere assertion that some manufacturers or importers violate the Rule does not prove that the Commission needs to amend the Rule. Therefore, the Commission declines to propose more rigorous testing requirements.
However, the comments suggest a need to clarify the Rule's reasonable basis requirements to aid compliance without increasing or decreasing the burden imposed on industry. Specifically, providing examples of situations where testing an entire garment may be needed to determine care instructions, as well as examples where such testing is not needed, may help clarify the Rule's requirements. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to incorporate advice from its business education materials and include examples in Section 423.6(c)(3) and (5) as set forth in the proposed amendment in the last section of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Because the Commission does not intend to impose new requirements on manufacturers or importers, it views these proposed revisions as non-substantive.
Several comments urged the Commission to update and expand the Rule's definition of “dryclean” to include new solvents in the list of examples and to cover solvents that are not organically-based. One comment noted the introduction of new solvents over the last 25 years, such as high flash hydrocarbons, silicones, glycol ethers, carbon dioxide, and aldehydes. It also explained that one solvent listed in the definition, fluorocarbon, is no longer used, and that not all solvents are organically-based. Additionally, several comments argued that the definition discourages the use of solvents not recognized by the Rule and, therefore, risks curtailing technological advancement.
The record shows that the Commission needs to modernize the Rule's definition of “dryclean.” Although the definition technically includes all common organic solvents, it only lists three examples, one of which is no longer used. To address the concerns raised by comments, the Commission proposes to broaden the definition to cover any solvent excluding water. In addition, the Commission proposes to drop the reference to fluorocarbon and add new solvents identified in the record to the list of examples. The Commission does not propose to delete perchloroethylene from the list because drycleaners continue to use it and may do so at least until California's ban takes effect in 2023. Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending Section 423.1(c) as set forth in the proposed amendment in the last section of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Commission also proposes to amend Appendix A.7.a in the same way and to amend Appendix 7.c to include the solvent examples from the revised definition.
A number of comments proposed amendments to the Rule other than those discussed above. Some suggested that the Commission require manufacturers and importers to disclose all appropriate care procedures. Others proposed requiring additional disclosures, disallowing certain care instructions, addressing the format or composition of labels, expanding the scope of the Rule, or imposing additional requirements such as making manufacturers or importers accountable to consumers if they provide inaccurate care instructions. One commenter proposed changing the “overarching nomenclature and the guiding principle” behind the Rule to improve the reliability and understandability of care labels. The Commission declines to propose any of these amendments for the reasons explained below. Additionally, the comments did not suggest amending the Rule to address the presentation of instructions in multiple languages, and the Commission declines to propose any amendments addressing this issue.
Several comments from the cleaning industry urged the Commission to require manufacturers and importers to disclose all appropriate methods of care. None of the comments from other affected industries supported this proposal. The Commission issued the Rule to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices. In issuing the Rule, the Commission determined, based on the record in the proceeding, that it was unfair or deceptive for manufacturers and importers to fail to disclose a regular care procedure necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the product (or to warn the consumer that the product cannot be cleaned without being harmed). It did not conclude that manufacturers and importers must disclose multiple care procedures. None of the comments included evidence demonstrating that the failure to disclose all appropriate care methods would result in deception or unfairness under the FTC Act. Nor did they submit evidence that the benefits of requiring such a disclosure
Similarly, the other comments proposing that the Commission impose additional disclosure or other obligations on manufacturers and importers, summarized in Section II.F above, failed to show that imposing these obligations is necessary to prevent deception or unfairness. Nor did they show that the benefits of the proposals would exceed their costs. Thus, the Commission declines to propose any of these amendments.
Some comments urged the Commission to require manufacturers and importers to disclose fiber content on care labels even though the Commission's Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”) already require disclosure of fiber content.
GreenEarth proposed changing the “overarching nomenclature and the guiding principle” behind the Rule to improve the reliability and understandability of care labels (
Finally, the ANPR sought comments on whether the Commission should amend the Rule to address care instructions in multiple languages. None of the comments proposed amending the Rule to address the format for presenting instructions in more than one language, although two comments noted that using or harmonizing symbols would address problems stemming from disclosures in multiple languages. Because none of the comments proposed any amendments directly addressing the presentation of multiple languages on care labels, the Commission declines to propose any amendments on this issue. The Commission, however, seeks additional comment on whether any of the proposed amendments to the Rule affect the need to address this issue.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 16, 2012. Write “Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 423, Project No. R511915” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, don't include any ‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, don't include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423, Project No. R511915” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex B), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Commission invites members of the public to comment on any issues or concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's consideration of proposed amendments to the Care Labeling Rule. The Commission requests that comments provide factual data upon which they are based. In addition to the issues raised above, the Commission solicits public comment on the costs and benefits to industry members and consumers of each of the proposals as well as the specific questions identified below. These questions are designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted.
1. Is there empirical evidence regarding whether consumers interpret a “dryclean” instruction to mean that a garment cannot be washed? If so, please submit such evidence.
2. How many domestic businesses provide professional wetcleaning to the public on a regular basis? To what extent do domestic businesses provide both drycleaning and wetcleaning? What evidence supports your answers?
3. To what extent do consumers have access to and use professional wetcleaning services? To what extent are wetcleaning services widely available geographically? What evidence supports your answers?
4. To what extent are consumers aware of the attributes and availability of professional wetcleaning services? What evidence supports your answer?
5. Assuming the Commission amends the Rule to permit a wetcleaning instruction, should the Commission also amend Section 423.8(d) of the Rule, which exempts products that can be cleaned safely under the harshest procedures from the requirement of a permanent care label? If so, how? What evidence supports your answer? For example, should the Commission amend this section to add professional wetcleaning to the list of procedures that safely can be used for a product to fall under this exemption?
6. To what extent do drycleaners use solvents other than petroleum and perc? To what extent do they use each of these drycleaning solvents? How do these other solvents compare to perc with respect to performance and environmental effects? To what extent do they use multiple solvents? What evidence supports your answers?
7. To what extent do manufactures and importers disclose fiber content information on labels providing care instructions? What evidence supports your answer?
8. To what extent do manufacturers and importers use care symbols to provide care instructions for garments and piece goods sold in the United States? To what extent do they use symbols alone? To what extent do they use symbols in conjunction with written instructions? To what extent do they use ASTM symbols without using ISO symbols, ISO symbols without using ASTM symbols, or both ASTM and ISO symbols? What evidence supports your answer?
9. Is there empirical evidence regarding the extent to which consumers understand or rely on care symbols or find labels using multiple symbol systems, such as both the ASTM and ISO symbol systems, confusing? If so, please submit such evidence.
10. The meaning of one drycleaning symbol in the ASTM symbol system currently permitted by the Rule, a circle with the letter “P” inside, changed significantly in the revised ASTM symbol system. The currently permitted symbol means dryclean with any solvent except perc. In contrast, the symbol under the revised system means dryclean with perc or petroleum. Should the Commission amend the Rule to address this issue? If so, how? What evidence supports your answer?
11. Do the proposed amendments to the Rule's reasonable basis provisions clarify them adequately? Is any additional clarification needed? If so, what? If not, why not? What evidence supports your answers?
12. The record did not establish a need to amend the Rule to address care labels in multiple languages. Do any of the proposed amendments to the Rule affect the need to address this issue? If so, how? What evidence supports your answer?
13. Would the following amendments impose costs or confer benefits on consumers? Would they impose costs or confer benefits on apparel and piece good manufacturers and importers, especially small businesses? Would they impose costs or confer benefits on businesses that clean apparel, especially small businesses? Would they impose costs or confer benefits on businesses that sell apparel or piece goods to consumers, especially small businesses? If so, how? If not, why not? What evidence supports your answers?
(A) Amending the Rule to permit manufacturers and importers to provide a professional wetcleaning instruction for garments or piece goods that can be professionally wetcleaned;
(B) Amending the Rule to update the provision allowing the use of certain care symbols in lieu of written terms by permitting manufacturers and importers to use the symbol system set forth in either ASTM Standard D5489-07, “Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products,” or ISO 3758:2005(E), “Textiles—Care labelling code using symbols”;
(C) Amending the Rule to clarify the Rule's reasonable basis requirements; and
(D) Amending the Rule's definition of “dryclean.”
14. General Questions: To maximize the benefits and minimize the costs for buyers and sellers (including specifically small businesses), the Commission seeks views and data on the following general questions for all the proposed changes described in this document:
(A) What benefits would the proposed changes confer, and on whom?
(B) What costs or burdens would the proposed changes impose, and on whom?
(C) What regulatory alternatives to the proposed changes are available that would reduce the burdens of the proposed changes while providing the same benefits?
Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), the Commission has determined that communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications shall be placed on the rulemaking record if the communication is received before the end of the comment period on the staff report. They shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received later. Unless the outside party making an oral communication is a member of Congress, such communications are permitted only if advance notice is
Under Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a rule only when it: (1) Estimates that the amendment will have an annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more; (2) estimates that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities or upon consumers. The Commission has preliminarily determined that the proposed amendments will not have such effects on the national economy; on the cost of labeling apparel and piece goods; or on covered parties or consumers.
The proposed amendments provide manufacturers and importers with additional options for disclosing care instructions, clarify the Rule, and update the definition of “dryclean” to reflect current practices and technology, so the proposed amendments would not require manufacturers or importers to alter their behavior and would not impose additional costs on them. The Commission, however, requests comment on the economic effects of the proposed amendments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that the Commission conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the proposed amendments on small entities. The purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that an agency considers the impacts on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small entities. Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency head certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments would not have a significant economic impact upon small entities, although it may affect a substantial number of small businesses. Specifically, the Commission proposes a few limited amendments designed to provide manufacturers and importers with more options for disclosing care instructions, clarify the Rule, and update the definition of “dryclean.” In the Commission's view, the proposed amendments should not have a significant or disproportionate impact on the costs of small entities that manufacture or import apparel or piece goods. Therefore, based on available information, the Commission certifies that amending the Rule as proposed will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the proposed amendments would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to inquire into the impact of the proposed amendments on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis:
In response to public comments, the Commission proposes amending the Rule to respond to the development of new technologies, changed commercial practices, and updated industry standards.
The objective of the proposed amendments is to provide manufacturers and importers of apparel and certain piece goods with additional options for disclosing care instructions, clarify the Rule's reasonable basis provisions, and update the definition of “dryclean” to reflect current practices and technology. The Commission promulgated the Rule pursuant to Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a. As noted earlier, the Commission has wide latitude in fashioning a remedy and need only show a “reasonable relationship” between the unfair or deceptive act at issue and the remedy.
Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration, textile apparel and some fabric manufacturers qualify as small businesses if they have 500 or fewer employees. Clothing and piece good wholesalers qualify as small businesses if they have 100 or fewer employees. The Commission's staff has estimated that approximately 22,218 manufacturers or importers of textile apparel are covered by the Rule's disclosure requirements.
As explained earlier in this document, the proposed amendments will provide apparel manufacturers and importers with additional options for disclosing care instructions, clarify the Rule's reasonable basis requirements, and update the definition of “dryclean” to reflect current practices and technology. The small entities potentially covered by these proposed amendments will include all such entities subject to the Rule. The professional skills necessary for compliance with the Rule as modified by the proposed amendments would include office and administrative support supervisors to determine label content and clerical personnel to draft and obtain labels. The Commission invites comment and information on these issues.
The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed amendments. The Commission invites comment and information on this issue.
The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives, as the proposed amendments simply provide additional options for disclosing care instructions, clarify the Rule's reasonable basis provisions, and update the definition of “dryclean” to reflect current practices and technology. Under these limited circumstances, the Commission does not believe a special exemption for small entities or significant compliance alternatives are necessary or appropriate to minimize the compliance burden, if any, on small entities while achieving the intended purposes of the proposed amendments. Nonetheless, the Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any, for alternative compliance methods that would reduce the economic impact of the Rule on small entities. If the comments filed in response to this NPRM identify small entities that would be affected by the proposed amendments, as well as alternative methods of compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the proposed amendments on such entities, the Commission will consider the feasibility of such alternatives and determine whether they should be incorporated into the final Rule. As explained above, the Commission considered a number of alternative amendments advocated by commenters and decided not to propose any of them.
The Rule contains various “collection of information” (
Clothing, Labeling, Textiles, Trade practices.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 423 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 57a.
2. Revise the heading of part 423 to read as set forth above.
3. Amend § 423.1 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
(c)
(h)
4. Amend § 423.6 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text, adding paragraph (b)(3), and revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(3), and (c)(5) to read as follows:
(b) Care labels must state what regular care is needed for the ordinary use of the product. In general, labels for textile wearing apparel must have either a washing instruction, a drycleaning instruction, or a wetcleaning instruction. If a washing instruction is included, it must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If a drycleaning instruction is included, it must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. If a wetcleaning instruction is included, it must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. If washing, drycleaning, or wetcleaning can be used, the label need have only one of these instructions. If the product cannot be cleaned by any available cleaning method without being harmed, the label must so state. [For example, if a product would be harmed by washing, drycleaning, and wetcleaning, the label might say, “Do not wash—do not dryclean or wetclean,” or “Cannot be successfully cleaned.”] The instructions for washing, drycleaning, and wetcleaning are as follows:
(3)
(ii)
(B) Warnings are not necessary for any procedure which is an alternative to the procedure prescribed on the label. [For example, if an instruction states “Professionally wetclean, very mild process,” it is not necessary to give the warning “Do not use normal process.”]
(c) A manufacturer or importer must establish a reasonable basis for care information by possessing prior to sale:
(3) Reliable evidence, like that described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, for each component part of the product in conjunction with reliable evidence for the garment as a whole; provided that test results showing that a whole garment can be cleaned as recommended may be required where, for example:
(i) The color of one part often bleeds onto another when the finished garment is washed;
(ii) A dye that is known to bleed, or beads, buttons, or sequins that are known to be damaged often in drycleaning are used; or
(iii) A garment contains several fibers, fabrics, or components not previously used together; or
(5) Reliable evidence of current technical literature, past experience, or industry expertise supporting the care information on the label [For example, if past experience with particular dyes and fabrics indicates that a particular red trim does not bleed onto surrounding fabric, testing the entire garment might not be necessary]; or
5. Amend § 423.8 by revising paragraph (g) as follows:
(g) The symbol systems developed by ASTM International (ASTM) and designated as ASTM D5489-07, “Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products” and by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and designated as 3758:2005(E), “Textiles—Care labelling code using symbols,” may be used on care labels or care instructions in lieu of terms so long as the symbols fulfill the requirements of this part. If the ISO symbols are used, the label should disclose this fact. In addition, symbols from either one of the two symbol systems above may be combined with terms so long as the symbols and terms used fulfill the requirements of this part. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
6. Amend Appendix A by revising paragraph 7.a and c, and by adding a new paragraph 9.a, to read as follows:
7.
a. “Dryclean”—a commercial process by which soil is removed from products or specimens in a machine which uses any solvent excluding water (
c. “Petroleum,” “Perchloroethylene,” “Silicone,” “Glycol Ether,” “Carbon Dioxide,” or “Aldehyde”—employ solvent(s) specified to dryclean the item.
9.
a. “Wetclean”—a commercial process for cleaning products or specimens in water carried out by professionals using special technology (cleaning, rinsing, and spinning), detergents, and additives to minimize adverse effects, followed by appropriate drying and restorative finishing procedures.
By direction of the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Missouri on September 21, 2010. This revision proposes to amend the ambient air quality standards table to reflect revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), update reference methods associated with the revised NAAQS, and update the breakpoint values for the Air Quality Index. These revisions would make Missouri's rules consistent with Federal regulations and improve the clarity of the rules.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by October 22, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0596, by mail to Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Amy Bhesania at (913) 551-7147, or by email at
In the final rules section of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from coating of metal containers, closures and coils and from graphic arts operations and the provision of sampling and testing facilities required for permitting and from adhesives and sealant applications. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by October 22, 2012.
Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2012-0550, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Andy Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4115,
This proposal addresses the following local rules: SDCAPCD Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure and Metal Coil Coating Operations; SDCAPCD Rule 67.16, Metal Container, Graphic Arts Operations; MBUAPCD Rule 205, Provision of Sampling and Testing Facilities and AVAQMD 1168, Adhesive and Sealant Applications. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Forest Service, USDA. Federal Highway Administration, USDOT.
Notice of withdrawal.
The Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District and FHWA are withdrawing their intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Kapka Butte Sno-park Construction project. The original Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the
Amy Tinderholt, Project Leader, Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, OR 97701, phone 541-383-4000.
The City of Conroe, Texas, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity on behalf of Bauer Manufacturing Inc. (Bauer), located in Conroe, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 12, 2012.
The Bauer facility is located within Site 1 of FTZ 265. The facility is used for the production of pile drivers and leads, boring machinery, foundation construction equipment, and related parts and sub-assemblies. Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bauer from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Bauer would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to pile drivers and leads, boring machinery, foundation construction equipment, and related parts and sub-assemblies (duty free) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
Components and materials sourced from abroad include: Petroleum oils and lubricants, paints/varnishes, glues/adhesives, ethylene monofilaments, propylene tubes/pipes/hoses, plastic tubes/pipes/hoses/fittings, self-adhesive plates/sheet/film/tape, stoppers/lids/caps, articles of plastic, rubber plates/sheets/tubes/hoses/pipes/gaskets/seals, leather goods, packing crates, decals, textile straps, mirrors, insulation, articles of steel (shapes, angles, bars, rods, sections, tubes, pipes, profiles, fittings, flanges, brackets, plate, wire, cable, hinges), chain, fasteners, springs, forged goods of steel, copper tubes/pipes/fittings/fasteners/profiles/cloth/netting, aluminum plates/sheets/strips, hand tools, drilling/boring components, pneumatic cylinders, flexible tubing, diesel engines and related parts, hydraulic engines/motors, pumps, compressors, turbochargers, air-conditioner components, heat exchangers, filters, fire extinguishers, hydraulic jacks/hoists, parts of boring/sinking machines, controllers, processors, electromechanical devices, valves, bearings, housings, electrical components, panels/boards, switches, transmissions and related parts, generators/alternators, gears, gearboxes, torque converters, flywheels, clutches, electronic components, lamps/lamp holders, wiring harnesses, magnets, batteries, lighting equipment, reception devices, horns, cameras/video equipment, radiators, exhaust systems and mufflers, measuring/testing instruments, seats, and paint/varnish brushes (duty rates range from free to 10.7%; 10.5¢/bbl; 1¢ ea. + 2.8%). The request indicates that all foreign steel products subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order will be admitted to the zone in domestic (duty-paid) status (19 CFR 146.43).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 30, 2012.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
On September 5, 2012, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) results of redetermination, which reclassified certain line items in the surrogate financial statement used to calculate surrogate financial ratios in the 2007-2008 administrative review of silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”),
Toni Dach, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1655.
On January 12, 2010, the Department issued its final results of administrative review in the 2007-2008 administrative review of silicon metal from the PRC.
In
On September 5, 2012, the CIT sustained the Department's Redetermination and entered judgment accordingly.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is aligning the final
Shane Subler or Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0189 or (202) 482-3477, respectively.
On March 27, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China.
The products covered by the scope of this investigation are stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel (“SS sinks”). Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the scope of this investigation if they are included within the sales price of the SS sinks.
The products covered by this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under statistical reporting numbers 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China, 77 FR 46717 (August 6, 2012), remains dispositive.
On August 3, 2012, petitioner Elkay Manufacturing Company submitted a letter, requesting alignment of the final countervailing duty (CVD) determination with the final antidumping duty (AD) determination in the companion AD investigation. This request was timely pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(i). Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department will issue the final CVD determination on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled for December 11, 2012.
International Trade Administration, DOC.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 11, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held in Room 4830 at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Mr. Todd DeLelle, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-4877; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
The meeting will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. This meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 3:00-3:30 p.m. EDT. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board. The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined in the section on Matters to be Considered.
Conference call. Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3, Room 12836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Members of the
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1156, Fax: 301-713-1459, Email:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 [Responsible Party: William Karp; Principal Investigator: Peter Corkeron], has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals and sea turtles.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before October 22, 2012.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376;
Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Joselyd Garcia-Reyes or Kristy Beard, (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 NEFSC is requesting a five-year permit to conduct scientific research on 38 species of cetaceans, four species of pinnipeds, and five species of sea turtles in the US EEZ from Florida to Maine and Canadian waters in the Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf. The research is designed to meet the NEFSC's mandates under the MMPA and ESA and primarily focuses on stock assessment. Specific objectives are to determine the abundance, distribution, movement patterns, dive behavior, demographic parameters, trends in recruitment, and stock structure of marine mammals in U.S. waters of the western North Atlantic. Twelve of the 47 species to be targeted for research are listed as threatened or endangered: blue whale (
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; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that a major amendment to Permit No. 14097-01 has been issued to National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) (Responsible Party: Lisa Ballance, Ph.D.), Protected Resources Division, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037.
The permit amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: See
Kristy Beard or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
On July 11, 2012, notice was published in the
The amendment authorizes: (1) The attachment of dart/barb tags or implantable tags on Arnoux's beaked whales (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376;
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426;
Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907) 586-7221; fax (907) 586-7249;
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018; and
Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808) 944-2200; fax (808) 973-2941.
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice; correction.
On Thursday, September 13 and Friday, September 14, 2012, the Department of Defense published 13 notices titled “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records.” In each of these notices, the DATES section contained a 31-day and 30-day insert date. Since the 31-day effective date and 30-day comment date fell on a weekend, the Office of the Federal Register pushed both dates forward to Monday, October 15, 2012. However, the 31-day effective date was meant to read “October 16, 2012”, one day after the 30-day comment date. This notice corrects these effective dates.
This correction is effective on September 20, 2012.
Aaron Siegel, 571-372-0488.
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 and Friday, September 14, 2012, 13 Department of Defense notices titled “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records” published in the
In each of these notices, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of Updated TRICARE Young Adult Premiums for Calendar Year 2013.
This notice provides the updated TRICARE Young Adult program premiums for Calendar Year (CY) 2013.
The CY 2013 rates contained in this notice are effective for services on or after January 1, 2013.
TRICARE Management Activity, Policy and Benefits Branch, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042-5101.
Mr. Mark A. Ellis, (703) 681-0039.
The interim final rule published in the
TRICARE Management Activity has updated the monthly premiums for CY 2013 as shown below:
The above premiums are effective for services rendered on or after January 1, 2013.
Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Overview Information; Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge; Phase 2 Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012.
Applications Available: September 20, 2012.
Date of Pre-Application Meeting: September 25, 2012. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 26, 2012.
The FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition identified five key reform areas representing the foundation of an effective early learning and development reform agenda that is focused on school readiness and ongoing educational success. These areas, which provided a framework for the competition's priorities, requirements, and selection criteria, are:
(A) Successful State Systems;
(B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs;
(C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children;
(D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce; and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
The first two of these reform areas, (A) and (B), are core areas of focus for this program (hereafter “Core Areas”), and applicants under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition were required to respond to all selection criteria under these Core Areas. The reform areas in (C), (D), and (E) are areas (hereafter “Focused Investment Areas”) where applicants directed targeted attention to specific activities that were relevant to their State's context. Applicants were required to address each Focused Investment Area but not all of the selection criteria under them.
In December 2011, the Departments made awards to the nine highest scoring applications from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition: California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington.
On December 23, 2011, the President signed into law Public Law 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, which made $550 million available for the Race to the Top Fund. This legislation authorized the Secretary of Education to make Race to the Top Fund awards on “the basis of previously submitted applications.” The Department of Education must obligate these funds by December 31, 2012.
On April 9, 2012, the Departments announced that approximately $133 million of the $550 million appropriated for the Race to the Top Fund would be made available to the next five highest scoring applicants from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. These five applicants, each of which received approximately 75 percent or more of the available points under the competition, are Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin. These States are referred to as “eligible applicants” for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program, under which the Departments will fund down
While $133 million can support only a selection of the activities in the plans submitted by these States in the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, the Secretaries believe that supporting with FY 2012 funding high-scoring applicants that did not receive funding under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition will help build on the momentum from the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition and engage more States in transforming the patchwork of disconnected early childhood programs into a coordinated and high-quality system. Therefore, we will make FY 2012 funds available to the eligible applicants at up to 50 percent of the amount each requested in its application under the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition.
The Department of Education may use any unused funds from Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program to make awards in the FY 2012 Race to the Top District competition, which was announced in a separate notice published in the
Except where otherwise indicated in this notice inviting applications or in the notice of final requirements for the RTT-ELC Phase 2 competition, published elsewhere in this issue of the
(a) An application, consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, that—
(1) Meets the application requirements described in the
(2) Provides the assurances described in the
(b) For review and approval by both Departments, a detailed plan and budget describing the activities selected from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application that would be implemented with Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding, in accordance with the
We encourage eligible applicants to partner with each other and currently funded RTT-ELC grantees in carrying out specific activities (such as validation of a State's Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System (TQRIS), implementation of longitudinal data systems, or development of a kindergarten entry assessment). Each eligible applicant may apply for Phase 2 RTT-ELC awards individually or as a member of a consortium (with other eligible applicants) under 34 CFR 75.127-129. A consortium can be formed only with other eligible applicants and requires a single application. A partnership can be described in the application of an individual State or a consortium and can include eligible applicants as well as currently-funded grantees. In any event, an eligible applicant must propose activities for Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program that are consistent with its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(a) Each eligible applicant must describe how it would implement an organizational structure for managing the Phase 2 RTT-ELC grant that is consistent with the activities and commitments described in response to selection criterion A(3)(a)(1)
(b) In addition to addressing the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, each eligible applicant must select and describe how it will implement activities that it identified in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application in response to Focused Investment Areas C, D, or E. The eligible applicant must select activities from two or more of the three Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E, and the activities must be responsive to one or more of the selection criteria under the Focused Investment Areas chosen by the applicant. (Eligible applicants may implement additional activities proposed under more than one selection criterion within each Focused Investment Area.) In determining which selection criteria to address given the amount of available funds under Phase 2 of the RTT-ELC program, each eligible applicant must give consideration to those activities that will have the greatest impact on improving access to high-quality early learning programs for children with high needs.
In light of the reduced funding available, applicants may make adjustments in the scope of services provided to meet selection criteria in Core Area A(3)(a)(1), Core Area B, Competitive Preference Priority 2, and Focused Investment Areas C, D, and E. For example, an applicant may propose to serve fewer programs or regions of the State than it proposed to serve in its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. The eligible applicant must provide a detailed explanation of its rationale for such adjustments and also must amend its targets in Tables B(2)(c) and B(4)(c)(1-2) of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC application, as needed. The adjustments may not diminish the program's impact on improving access to high-quality early learning programs for children with high needs. In addition, if the scope of work is adjusted by targeting specific regions in the State, the activities must be consistent across regions. In making these adjustments, the Departments strongly encourage eligible applicants to consider how to use other appropriate Federal, State, private, and local resources to support their selected activities.
(c) In addition, each eligible applicant may implement the activities it proposed in response to the Invitational Priorities from its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. Eligible applicants that wrote to Invitational Priority 2 are encouraged to enter into public-private partnerships if doing so would augment
(d) The Departments will use Phase 2 RTT-ELC funding to support only those activities included in an eligible applicant's FY 2011 RTT-ELC application. Therefore, an eligible applicant must not include new activities in its Phase 2 RTT-ELC application.
(e) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include current signatures by the eligible applicant's Governor or an authorized representative signing on behalf of the Governor; an authorized representative from the eligible applicant's Lead Agency; and an authorized representative from each Participating State Agency.
(f) Each Phase 2 RTT-ELC application must include a newly-signed Memorandum of Understanding and a preliminary scope of work for each Participating State Agency.
(a) While the State may make appropriate adjustments to the scope, budget, timelines, and performance targets, consistent with the reduced amount of funding that is available under Phase 2 RTT-ELC, the State will maintain consistency with the absolute priority and meet all program and eligibility requirements of the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition.
(b) The State must update tables 1-5 from section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 application. In addition, if the State has made any significant changes to the commitments, financial investments, numbers of children served, legislation, policies, practices, or other key areas of the program described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 application, it must submit an explanation of those changes, including updates to tables 6-13 from section (A)(1) as needed.
The State will maintain, in a manner consistent with its updates to tables 1-13, its commitment to and investment in high-quality, accessible early learning and development programs and services for children with high needs, as described in section (A)(1) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(c) Subject to adjustments made because of the reduced amount of funding available under the Phase 2 RTT-ELC award process, the State will maintain its plan to establish strong participation and commitment by Participating State Agencies and other early learning and development stakeholders as described in section (A)(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(d) The State will maintain its commitment to integrating and aligning resources and policies across Participating State Agencies as described in section (A)(3) of its FY 2011 RTT-ELC application.
(e) The State will comply with all of the accountability, transparency, and reporting requirements that applied to the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition. (See the notice inviting applications for the FY 2011 RTT-ELC competition, published in the
(f) The State will comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the RTT-ELC program, or of specific activities it proposes to pursue as part of the program, conducted and supported by the Departments.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), as amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of Pub. L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of Division F of Public Law 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012).
The Departments are not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.
b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This competition involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. Consistent with RTT-ELC program requirement (J) in the notice inviting applications that published in the
1.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person listed under
2.a.
3.
Applications Available: September 20, 2012.
Date of Pre-Application Meeting: September 25, 2012.
To assist eligible applicants in preparing an application and responding to questions, the Departments will host a Webinar for eligible applicants shortly after the publication of this notice. Because only five States are eligible for these funds, information about the Webinar will be provided directly to those States. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 26, 2012.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
We will provide Congress with the names of the States that have submitted applications, as well as post the names of these States on the program's Web site. We will also post all applications submitted by the States. Therefore, please ensure that your application does not include personally identifiable information, proprietary information, or other non-public information.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) and, after July 24, 2012, with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR or SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Departments and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your CCR registration annually. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at SAM.gov.
7.
a.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted in electronic format on a CD or DVD, with CD-ROM or DVD-ROM preferred. In addition, applicants must submit a signed paper original of the Application Assurances and Certification and one copy of that signed original. Autopen, copies, PDFs (Adobe Portable Document Format), and faxed copies of signature pages are not acceptable originals.
We strongly recommend the applicant to submit a CD or DVD of its application that includes the following files:
1. A single file that contains the body of the application, including required budget tables, that has been converted into a PDF (Portable Document) format so that the PDF is searchable. Note that a PDF created from a scanned document will not be searchable.
2. A single file in a PDF format that contains all of the required signature
3. Copies of the completed electronic budget spreadsheets with the required budget tables, which should be in a separate file from the body of the application.
Each of these items must be clearly labeled with the State's name and any other relevant identifying information. States must not password-protect these files.
We must receive all grant applications by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will not accept an application for this competition after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that applicants arrange for mailing or hand delivery of their application in advance of the application deadline date.
b.
c.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If we receive an application after the application deadline, we will not consider that application.
d.
(1) It must indicate on the envelope that the CFDA number of the competition under which it is submitting its application is 84.412; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to the applicant a notification of receipt of the grant application. If the applicant does not receive this notification, it should call the Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
In accordance with 34 CFR 75.216(b) and (c), an application will not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application or the application does not contain the information required under the program.
1.
2.
We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant program, the Secretaries may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretaries may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of questionable quality.
In addition, the Secretaries also require various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If an application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., room 3E230, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-260-3793 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of these Departments published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site:
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.
Information collection extension; notice and request for comments.
EIA, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, proposes to extend without changes for three years the Form DOE-887, “DOE Customer Surveys” with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before November 19, 2012. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to Colleen Blessing, EI-40, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by fax at (202) 586-0114, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Colleen Blessing at the address listed, above.
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Customer information is needed to make DOE products and services more effective, efficient, and less costly. Data from some customer surveys may also help develop benchmarks to evaluate DOE customer service performance.
Both quantitative and qualitative studies are developed by EIA. Quantitative studies classify and count questionnaire response items and examine the statistical significance of response types in attempting to explain what is observed. EIA conducts quantitative studies in asking questions concerning satisfaction with timeliness, courtesy, accuracy and other particular aspects of the agency's operations. Qualitative studies seek to find patterns in the words and actions of study participants and involve these participants providing detailed descriptions, in their own words. Examples of qualitative studies conducted by EIA include a focus group of customers assembled to discuss a specific set of questions, and a cognitive laboratory experiment that asks volunteer subjects to describe their opinions regarding a product or service;
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Executive Order 12862 § 1, 58 FR 48257 (Sept. 11, 1993).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-912, Cogeneration and Small Power Production, PURPA Section 210(m) Regulations for Termination or Reinstatement of Obligation to Purchase or Sell.
Comments on the collection of information are due November 19, 2012.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC12-20-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
• An electric utility to file an application for the termination of its obligation to purchase energy from a Qualifying Facility (QF)
• An affected entity or person to apply to the Commission for an order reinstating the electric utility's obligation to purchase energy from a QF
• An electric utility to file an application for the termination of its obligation to sell energy and capacity to QFs
• An affected entity or person to apply to the Commission for an order reinstating the electric utility's obligation to sell energy and capacity to QFs
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $6762.94 [98 hours ÷ 2080
On September 11, 2012, the Commission issued a
(1.) The heading is changed to read:
Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests.
Take notice that on September 11, 2012, Dominion South Pipeline Company, L.P. (Dominion South), 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23113, filed an application in Docket No. CP12-519-000 pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization to abandon by sale to Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP (Gulf Shore) certain facilities in Matagorday County, Texas. Also on September 11, 2012, Gulf Shore, 333 Clay Street, Suite 4500, Houston, Texas 77002, file an application in Docket No. CP12-520-000 pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations to acquire the subject facilities from Dominion South and to install certain compression facilities. Gulf Shore additionally requests a Part 157 blanket certificate and a Part 284 blanket certificate, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions concerning Dominion South's application may be directed to David P. Kohler, Manager, Business Development, Dominion South Pipeline Company, L.P., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23113, by telephone at (804) 771-4470 or by email at
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
Conowingo dam impounds the Susquehanna River, forming Conowingo reservoir (Conowingo pond) that extends 14 miles upstream from the dam. Total storage in the 9,000-acre reservoir is approximately 310,000 acre-feet, and total useable storage is about 71,000 acre-feet at the normal full pool elevation of 109.2 feet. The elevation of the normal river surface below the dam is approximately 20.5 feet. The impoundment provides approximately 89 feet of gross head for power generation purposes.
The power plant is integral with the dam and is composed of 13 turbine-generator units, draft tubes, and transformer bays. The first seven turbine-generating units (1-7) are completely enclosed within the powerhouse, and the last four units (8-11) are located outside. The hydraulic equipment for units 1-7 consists of Francis-type single runner hydraulic turbines. The hydraulic equipment for units 8-11 consists of four mixed-flow Kaplan-type hydraulic turbines. Units 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have 47.7-MW generators; Units 2 and 5 have 36.0-MW generators; and Units 8-11 have 65.6-MW generators. Additionally, two house turbines provide station service and “black-start” capability with each unit having a 1.6-MW generator. Water flowing through the turbines is discharged via the draft tubes into the tailrace immediately downstream of the dam.
Electricity generated at the project is transmitted by two individual 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines extending from the project substation to East Nottingham.
The Conowingo Project has an authorized nameplate generating capacity of 573 MW and generates an average of 1,836,125 MWh annually. Exelon is not proposing any new or upgraded facilities or structural changes to the project at this time. Also, Exelon has engaged interested stakeholders to participate in the development of a comprehensive settlement agreement based on collaborative negotiation of specific terms and conditions for the new Conowingo license.
l.
m. You may also register online at
n.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
On August 31, 2012, Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (CCL), located at 700 Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application in Docket No. CP12-507-000, under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to site, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export and import facility to be located near Corpus Christi, in San Patricio and Nueces Counties, Texas, at the site of the previously authorized, but never constructed, Corpus Christi LNG, LLC LNG import terminal.
In the same application, Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. (CCP) (together Corpus Christi), located at 700 Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed with the Commission an application in Docket No. CP12-508-000, under section 7(c) of the NGA and parts 157, 284, and 380 of the Commission's regulations for (1) A certificate of public convenience and necessity (i) authorizing ccp to construct, own and operate a new natural gas pipeline, (ii) approving a
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Patricia Outtrim, Cheniere Energy, Inc., 700 Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 375-5212 or Lisa M. Tonery, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103, (212) 318-3009,
On December 22, 2011, the Commission staff granted CCL's request to use the pre-filing process and assigned Docket No. PF12-3-000 for this proceeding during the pre-filing review of the project. Now, as of the filing of CCL's application on August 31, 2012, the pre-filing process for this project has ended. From this time forward, CCL's proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP12-507-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental cementers will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental cementers will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the nonparty commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
York Haven's main dam and east channel dam impound the Susquehanna River, forming Lake Frederic that extends 3.5 miles upstream from the dam. Total storage in the 1,849-acre reservoir is approximately 8,000 acre-feet, and total useable storage is approximately 1,980 acre-feet. The current FERC license allows a 1.1-foot fluctuation in the project impoundment, but is not used under normal run-of-river operation. The normal water surface elevation of the project impoundment is 276.5 feet. The elevation of the normal river surface below the dam is approximately 251.40 feet. The impoundment provides approximately 22.5 feet of net head for power generation purposes.
The brick and stone masonry powerhouse has approximate dimensions of 470 feet by 48 feet and is located at the southern end of the headrace wall and at the eastern end of the forebay bulkhead wall. The powerhouse includes 20 turbine-generator units and appurtenant equipment. The hydraulic equipment for units 1-3 are vertical-shaft, fixed-blade, Kaplan turbines; unit 4 is a vertical-shaft, manually adjustable blade, Kaplan turbine; units 5 and 6 are vertical-shaft, fixed-blade, propeller-type turbines; units 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-20 each consist of two vertical-shaft, Francis turbines connected through bevel gears to a single horizontal shaft; unit 9 is a two vertical-shaft, Francis turbine connected through a gearbox to a single horizontal shaft; and unit 14 is a vertical-shaft, Francis turbine. Units 1-5 have 1.6-MW generators; unit 6 has a 1.32-MW generator; unit 14 has a 1.2-MW generator; and units 7-13 and 15-20 have 0.7-MW generators. Water flowing through the turbines is discharged into the tailrace immediately downstream of the dam.
Electricity generated at the project is transmitted by 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines extending from the project substation to the grid.
The York Haven Project has an authorized nameplate generating capacity of 19.65 MW and generates an average of 130,812 MWh annually. York Haven Power is currently studying the feasibility of providing a nature-like fishway to enhance fish passage facilities at the project.
l.
m. You may also register online at
n.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l. With this notice, we are designating Pennamaquan Power as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Pennamaquan Power filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission. Documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Pennamaquan Tidal Power Plant Project) and number (P-13884-001), and bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by November 13, 2012.
p. We intend to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for this project. The scoping meetings identified below satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
Pennamaquan Power will conduct a site visit for the proposed project on Thursday, October 25, 2012, starting at 1 p.m. The site visit will begin at the boat ramp parking lot on Boat Landing Road (off of Garnet Head Road), Pembroke, Maine 04666. For information about the meeting location for the site visit, please call Ramez Atiya from Pennamaquan Power at 801-583-1054.
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.
On August 31, 2012, Allegheny Hydro No. 8, L.P., Allegheny Hydro No. 9, L.P., and U.S. Bank National Association (in its capacity as owner trustee) (co-licensees) and Allegheny Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license for the Allegheny River Lock and Dam Nos. 8 and 9 Hydroelectric Project No. 3021, located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. 8 and Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. 9 on the Allegheny River in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.
Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Allegheny River Lock and Dam Nos. 8 and 9 Hydroelectric Project from Allegheny Hydro No. 8, L.P., Allegheny Hydro No. 9, L.P., and the U.S. Bank National Association as co-licensees to Allegheny Hydro, LLC as sole licensee.
Take notice that on September 7, 2012, Discovery Gas Transmission LLC (Discovery), 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP12-516-000 an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 the Commission's Rules and Regulations for all the necessary authorizations required to construct, own and operate its Junction Platform Project (Project) in the Gulf of Mexico offshore Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Discovery proposes construction and operation of a new junction platform located in South Timbalier Area (ST) Block 283; construction and operation of approximately 10 miles of 30-inch pipeline connecting the new platform to a subsea interconnect with Discovery's existing 30-inch mainline in Ewing Banks Area Block 873; construction and operation of approximately 10 miles of 12-inch pipeline connecting the new platform to Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC's offshore pipeline system in ST Block 280; and appurtenant facilities on the new platform to provide pigging and other necessary functions to enhance efficient operations. The estimated cost of the Project is approximately $126 million.
Copies of this filing are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Questions regarding this application should be directed to Larry Jensen, 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77056, telephone (713) 215-3034.
Discovery has requested that the Commission issue a final order in this proceeding by January 31, 2013, to enable Discovery to commence construction of the proposed facilities to meet a July 1, 2014 in-service date. As Discovery's proposed facilities entirely in the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Project facilities will qualify for categorical exclusions in accordance with 18 CFR 380.(4)(a)(33) and 18 CFR 380.4(a)(34) which state “* * * neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement shall be prepared for the following projects or actions: * * * (33) construction or abandonment of facilities constructed entirely in Federal offshore waters that has been approved by the Mineral Management Service and the Corps of Engineers, as necessary; (34) Abandonment or construction facilities on an existing offshore platform.” Thus the application must be approved by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement of the U.S. Department of the Interior, successor to the Mineral Management Service for this approval function, prior to the project being considered by the Commission as eligible for a categorical exclusion classification under the Commission's environmental review process.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Lake Charles Liquefaction Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Trunkline LNG Company, LLC/Trunkline LNG Export, LLC, and Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline) in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EIS 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 they need to evaluate in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close on October 15, 2012.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled as follows: FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Lake Charles Liquefaction Project, October 3, 2012, 6:00 p.m. local time, Holiday Inn, 330 Arena Road, Sulphur, Louisiana 70665,(337) 527-0858.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Trunkline plans to expand its existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana to liquefy natural gas and export the LNG. The planned facility would be capable of processing about 2.4 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, which would be supplied by the existing pipeline currently used to send out regasified LNG from the existing LNG terminal, and be capable of exporting approximately 15 million metric tons of LNG per year.
The Lake Charles Liquefaction Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Up to three liquefaction trains (each train contains metering and gas treatment facilities, liquefaction and refrigerant units, safety and control systems, and associated infrastructure);
• Approximately 0.27 mile of 36-inch-diameter feed gas line to supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility from existing gas transmission pipelines;
• Approximately 0.51 mile of LNG transfer and vapor lines between the existing LNG terminal and the planned liquefaction facility; and
• Modifications and upgrades at the existing LNG terminal.
Trunkline plans to initiate construction of the planned project in March 2014 in order to commence operation in March 2018. The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The planned liquefaction facilities would be constructed on an approximately 240-acre undeveloped site located immediately north of the existing LNG terminal. Trunkline would disturb approximately 230 acres during construction and maintain about 125 acres for permanent operation of the liquefaction facilities. Construction of the planned feed gas pipeline, LNG line, and vapor lines would be included in the 240-acre construction site and additional property within the perimeter of the existing LNG terminal. Modifications to take place at the existing LNG terminal would occur within the existing terminal boundaries.
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 EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• Land use;
• Water resources and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;
• Socioeconomics;
• Air quality and noise;
• Endangered and threatened species; and
• Public safety.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. 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 5.
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 EIS.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit its views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Trunkline. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis. Issued identified include:
• Potential impacts and potential benefits of construction workforce on local housing, infrastructure, public services, and economy;
• Potential impacts on recreational fishing and aquatic resources in the Calcasieu Ship Channel;
• Potential impacts on wetlands on the 240-acre site;
• Potential visual effects on surrounding areas; and
• Public safety and hazards associated with the transport of natural gas and LNG.
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 October 15, 2012. This is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Environmental Review Process flowchart in appendix 2.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (PF12-8-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the 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 can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
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.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).
Once Trunkline files its application with the Commission, 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
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
On May 18, 2012, Inglis Hydropower, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project located at the Inglis Bypass Channel, located on the Withlacoochee River in Levy County, Florida. 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: (1) An existing 32-foot-high, 3500-foot-long earth filled dam; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 4,000 acres and the storage capacity of 41,000 acre-feet; (3) a 1.75 mile-long bypass channel; (4) a 65-foot-wide, 35-foot-long intake structure with a trash rack cleaning system; (5) Four 12-foot-diameter, 250-foot-long steel penstocks; (6) a powerhouse containing three generation units with a total capacity of 2,300 kilo-Watts, with an estimated average annual generation of 14,200,000 kilo-Watt hours; (7) a 120-foot-long, 24 kilo-Volt underground transmission line.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
This meeting will be held at the Pan American Life Center, 601 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):
Order 1000 Right of First Refusal Task Team—September 17, 2012
Planning Advisory Committee—September 19, 2012
Order 1000 Right of First Refusal Task Team—September 24, 2012
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Jason Strong, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6124 or
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 November 19, 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.
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 November 19, 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.
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 November 19, 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.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to:
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 40901 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a licensee.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523-5843 or by email at
By the Commission.
The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued pursuant to section 40901 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101).
The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 40901 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101) effective on the date shown.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 5, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The 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 October 15, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to acquire Century Home Mortgage of Oklahoma, LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly engage in mortgage lending activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1).
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the GSAR Price Reductions Clause. A notice was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: October 22, 2012.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0235, Price Reduction Clause, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0235, Price Reduction Clause”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0235, Price Reduction Clause” on your attached document.
•
•
Ms. Dana Munson, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 357-9652 or email
The clause at GSAR 552.238-75, Price Reductions, used in multiple award schedule contracts ensures that the Government maintains its relationship with the contractor's customer or category of customers, upon which the contract is predicated. The reason for the burden increase is based on the results of comments received.
The Coalition for Government Procurement provided comments on behalf of its members. The comments are insightful and provide a foundation on which to counter-estimate annual burden hours.
The comments provided included an analysis of the practical utility of the Price Reductions Clause (PRC); the perceived limitations placed on MAS contractors in the commercial market due to the PRC; an estimate of the PRC reporting burden; and the results of the Coalition survey issued to its members on the burden hours of training, compliance systems, contract negotiations, and audit preparation.
GSA appreciates the comments provided and agrees that the reporting burden was underestimated. The PRC is included in the retrospective analysis and review under Executive Order 13563, as part of GSA's modernization effort.
Using the results of the contractor survey conducted by the Coalition relative to the burden hours associated with collection of information on the PRC, GSA has reevaluated and revised the total annual burden. An analysis of the evaluation is as follows:
Training—GSA believes that costs and hours allocated to training have a direct link to the size, business structure and product offerings of the company. Further, the investment of hours for design and development of a training program far exceed those aligned with conducting the training itself. We estimate that training activity for design and development of this type of training can be accomplished in approximately 80 hours, with an additional 5 hours to
The estimated burden hours to administer training:
Compliance systems—Reduced expenditures should occur after the initial investment. The average dollar investment and the number of hours invested to set-up and monitor a compliance system will vary per vendor based on offerings, basis of award, participation in government or commercial marketplace, and the company's business structure. As a result, compliance system burden hours are broken down to address the diverse MAS vendor base. We estimate approximately 20% of the 16,000 MAS vendors have all invested more heavily in the federal marketplace and therefore may require more burden hours to set up and monitor PRC compliance. The remaining estimated 80% have fewer offerings and less complex business structures resulting in reduced burden hours to setup and monitor compliance. Additionally, compliance systems are used to monitor other requirements in addition to the PRC. Therefore, the average number of hours invested to set up and monitor the system, as well as the cost of the system must be distributed over a larger base than just the PRC.
The estimated burden hours for vendors with heavier investments in the federal marketplace are as follows:
The estimated burden hours for vendors with less heavy investments in the federal marketplace are as follows:
Negotiations—The PRC is one of many areas negotiated with MAS contractors. We attribute pricing data to constitute over
Audits—Over the past three years (FY10, FY11, FY12) an average of 70 FSS contracts were audited by the IG each year. The respondent estimated that approximately 440-470 hours were spent preparing for audits involving the PRC. Thus, GSA took the average of the respondent's estimate (445) and multiplied it by 70, which is the consistent number of contracts audited during the last three fiscal years, to reach the sum of 31,150 hours expended preparing for audits.
The Depository Library Council to the Public Printer will meet on Monday, October 15, 2012 through Thursday, October 18, 2012, in Arlington Virginia. The sessions will take place from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday through Thursday. The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel Crystal City, located at 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Federal Depository Library Program. All sessions are open to the public. The sleeping rooms available at the Doubletree Hotel will be at the Government rate of $ 226.00 (plus applicable state and local taxes, currently 10%) a night for a single or double. The Doubletree is in compliance with the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and meets all Fire Safety Act regulations.
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 of a decision to designate a class of employees from Clarksville Modification Center, Ft. Campbell, in Clarksville, Tennessee, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 23, 2012, 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 Clarksville Modification Center, Fort Campbell, in Clarksville, Tennessee, from August 1, 1949, through December 31, 1967, 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 will become effective on September 22, 2012, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. 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 of a decision to designate a class of employees from Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center in Winchester, Massachusetts, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 23, 2012, 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 Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center in Winchester, Massachusetts, from January 1, 1952, through December 31, 1961, 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 in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation will become effective on September 22, 2012, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. 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 of a decision to designate a class of employees from Medina Modification Center in San Antonio, Texas, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 23, 2012, 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 Medina Modification Center in San Antonio, Texas, from January 1, 1958, through December 31, 1966, 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 in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. 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 of a decision to designate a class of employees from Hanford Engineer Works in Richland, Washington, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 23, 2012, 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 Hanford Engineer Works in Richland, Washington, from July 1, 1972, through December 31, 1983, 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 will become effective on September 22, 2012, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. 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 of a determination concerning a petition to add a class of employees from Titanium Alloys Manufacturing in Niagara Falls, New York, to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384q. On August 23, 2012, the Secretary of HHS determined that the following class of employees does not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the SEC as authorized under EEOICPA:
All employees who worked in any area or building at Titanium Alloys Manufacturing from January 1, 1955, through December 31, 1956.
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 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, U.S.C. Appendix 2, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) will hold its twenty-ninth meeting. The meeting will be open to the public. Information about SACHRP and the full meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP Web site at:
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, October 10, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 705A, Washington, DC 20201.
Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., Director, Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), or Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; 240-453-8141; fax: 240-453-6909; email address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Assistant Secretary for Health on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
The meeting will open Tuesday, October 9, with remarks from SACHRP Chair Dr. Barbara Bierer and OHRP Director Dr. Jerry Menikoff, followed by a report from the Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS). SAS will discuss their recent work, including considerations for revisions to the expedited review list, principal investigator responsibilities, and informed consent waiver criteria. SAS is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment; this subcommittee was established by SACHRP in October 2006. Tuesday afternoon will be a discussion of informed consent issues in cluster randomized trials, featuring Dr. Andrew McRae, Research Director of the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary.
On the morning of October 10, the Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) will give a report and discuss their recent work, including local context guidance recommendations. SOH was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting, and is charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS would benefit from harmonization, consistency, clarity, simplification and/or coordination. Wednesday afternoon SACHRP will discuss a revised document on the issue of the use of the Internet in human subjects research, drafted by Drs. Elizabeth Buchanan and Dean Gallant. Public Comment will be heard on both days.
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend the meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact persons. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments on both days of the meeting. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed materials distributed to SACHRP members for this scheduled meeting should submit materials to the Executive Director, SACHRP, prior to the close of business October 1, 2012.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Online Application Order Form for Products from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP).” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by October 22, 2012.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP, pronounced “H-Cup”) is a vital resource helping AHRQ achieve its research agenda, thereby furthering its goal of improving the delivery of health care in the United States. HCUP is a family of health care databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and sponsored by AHRQ. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. The HCUP databases are annual files that contain anonymous information from hospital discharge records for inpatient care and certain components of outpatient care, such as emergency care and ambulatory surgeries. The project currently releases a variety of databases created for research use on a broad range of health issues, including cost and quality of health services, medical practice patterns, access to health care programs, and outcomes of treatments at the national, State, and local market levels. HCUP also produces a large number of software tools to enhance the use of administrative health care data for research and public health use. Software tools use information available from a variety of sources to create new data elements, often through sophisticated algorithms, for use with the HCUP databases.
HCUP's objectives are to:
• Create and enhance a powerful source of national, state, and all-payer health care data.
• Produce a broad set of software tools and products to facilitate the use of HCUP and other administrative data.
• Enrich a collaborative partnership with statewide data organizations (that voluntarily participate in the project) aimed at increasing the quality and use of health care data.
• Conduct and translate research to inform decision making and improve health care delivery.
The HCUP releases six types of databases for public research use:
(1) The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) is the largest all-payer inpatient care database in the United States, containing data from approximately 8 million hospital stays from roughly 1,000 hospitals; this approximates a 20-percent stratified sample of U.S. community hospitals. NIS data releases are available for purchase from the HCUP Central Distributor for data years beginning in 1988.
(2) The Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) is the only all-payer inpatient care database for children in the United States. The KID was specifically designed to permit researchers to study a broad range of conditions and procedures related to child health issues. The KID contains a sample of over 3 million discharges for children age 20 and younger from more than 3,500 U.S. community hospitals.
(3) The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) is the largest all-payer ED database in the United States. It is constructed to capture information both on ED visits that do not result in an admission and on ED visits that result in an admission to the same hospital. The NEDS contains more than 25 million unweighted records for ED visits at about 1,000 U.S. community hospitals and approximates a 20-percent stratified sample of U.S. hospital-based EDs. Files are available beginning with data year 2006.
(4) The State Inpatient Databases (SID) contain the universe of inpatient discharge abstracts from data organizations in 46 States that currently participate in the SID. Together, the SID encompasses approximately 97 percent of all U.S. community hospital discharges. Most States that participate in the SID make their data available for purchase through the HCUP Central Distributor. Files are available beginning with data year 1990.
(5) The State Ambulatory Surgery Databases (SASD) contain data from ambulatory care encounters in hospital-affiliated (and sometimes freestanding) ambulatory surgery sites. Currently, 29 States participate in the SASD. Files are available beginning with data year 1997.
(6) The State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) contain data from hospital-affiliated emergency department (ED) abstracts for visits that do not result in a hospitalization. Currently, 29 States participate in the SEDD. Files are available beginning with data year 1999.
To support AHRQ's mission to improve health care through scientific research, HCUP databases and software tools are disseminated to users outside of the Agency through a mechanism known as the HCUP Central Distributor. The HCUP Central Distributor assists qualified researchers to access uniform research data across multiple states with the use of one application process. The HCUP databases disseminated through the Central distributor are referred to as “restricted access public release files;” that is, they are publicly available, but only under restricted conditions.
HCUP databases are released to researchers outside of AHRQ after the completion of required training and submission of an application that includes a signed FICUP Data Use Agreement (DUA). In addition, before restricted access public release state-level databases are released, the user is asked for a brief description of their research to ensure that the planned use is consistent with HCUP policies and with the FICUP data use requirements. Fees are set for databases released through the HCUP Central Distributor depending on the type of database. The fee for sale of state-level data is determined by each participating Statewide Data Organization and reimbursed to those organizations. This project is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor and subcontractor, Thomson Reuters and Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the outcomes, cost, cost-effectiveness, and use of health care services and access to such services. (42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3).)
This information collection request is for the activities associated with completing an online application form to request HCUP data, not the collection of health care data for HCUP databases. The activities associated with the HCUP online application include:
(1) HCUP Application Form. All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must complete an application package. Each unique database has a unique application package. All application packages are available for
(2) HCUP Data Use Agreement Training. All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must complete this online training course. The purpose of the training is to emphasize the importance of data protection, reduce the risk of inadvertent violations, and describe the individual's responsibility when using HCUP data. The training course can be accessed and completed online at
(3) HCUP Data Use Agreement (DUA). All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must sign a data use agreement. Each database has a unique DUA; an example DUA for the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database is available at
Information collected in the HCUP Application Order Form will be used for two purposes only:
1.
2.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden associated with the applicants' time to order any of the HCUP databases. An estimated 1,200 persons will order HCUP data annually. Each of these persons will complete an application (10 minutes), the DUA training (15 minutes) and a DUA (5 minutes). The total burden is estimated to be 600 hours annually.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the applicants' time to order HCUP data. The total cost burden is estimated to be $21,408 annually.
Exhibit 3 shows the estimated total and annualized cost to process HCUP database applications and maintain the ordering system over the 3 years covered by this information collection request. It is estimated to cost $17,237 annually to operate and maintain the ordering system.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component and the MEPS Medical Provider Component.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by October 22, 2012.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses, and health policy.
Major changes continue to take place in the health care delivery system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.
Households selected for participation in the MEPS Household Component (MEPS-HC) are interviewed five times in person. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him/herself and for other family members.
The MEPS-HC has the following goal:
• To provide nationally representative estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population for health care use, expenditures, sources of payment and health insurance coverage.
The MEPS Medical Provider Component (MEPS-MPC) will contact medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) identified by household respondents in the MEPS-HC as sources of medical care for the time period covered by the interview, and all pharmacies providing prescription drugs to household members during the covered time period. The MEPS-MPC is not designed to yield national estimates. The sample is designed to target the types of individuals and providers for whom household reported expenditure data was expected to be insufficient. For example, households with one or more Medicaid enrollees are targeted for inclusion in the MEPSMPC because this group is expected to have limited information about payments for their medical care.
The MEPS-MPC has the following goal:
• To serve as an imputation source for and to supplement/replace household reported expenditure and source of payment information. This data will supplement, replace and verify information provided by household respondents about the charges, payments, and sources of payment associated with specific health care encounters.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractors, Westat and RTI International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the cost and use of health care services and with respect to health statistics and surveys. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3) and (8); 42 U.S.C. 299b-2.
To achieve the goals of the MEPS-HC the following data collections are implemented:
1. Household Component Core Instrument. The core instrument collects data about persons in sample households. Topical areas asked in each round of interviewing include condition enumeration, health status, health care utilization including prescribed medicines, expense and payment, employment, and health insurance. Other topical areas that are asked only once a year include access to care, income, assets, satisfaction with health plans and providers, children's health, and adult preventive care. While many of the questions are asked about the entire reporting unit (RU), which is
2. Adult Self Administered Questionnaire. A brief self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) will be used to collect self-reported (rather than through household proxy) information on health status, health opinions and satisfaction with health care for adults 18 and older. The satisfaction with health care items are a subset of items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®). The health status items are from the Short Form 12 Version 2 (SF-12 version 2), which has been widely used as a measure of self-reported health status in the United States, the Kessler Index (K6) of non-specific psychological distress, and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2).
3. Diabetes Care SAQ. A brief self administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire on the quality of diabetes care is administered once a year (during rounds 3 and 5) to persons identified as having diabetes. Included are questions about the number of times the respondent reported having a hemoglobin A1c blood test, whether the respondent reported having his or her feet checked for sores or irritations, whether the respondent reported having an eye exam in which the pupils were dilated, the last time the respondent had his or her blood cholesterol checked and whether the diabetes has caused kidney or eye problems. Respondents are also asked if their diabetes is being treated with diet, oral medications or insulin.
4. Authorization forms for the MEPS-MPC Provider and Pharmacy Survey. As in previous panels of the MEPS, we will ask respondents for authorization to obtain supplemental information from their medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) and pharmacies.
5. MEPS Validation Interview. Each interviewer is required to have at least 15 percent of his/her caseload validated to insure that CAPI questionnaire content was asked appropriately and procedures followed, for example the use of show cards. Validation flags are set programmatically for cases pre-selected by data processing staff before each round of interviewing. Home office and field management may also request that other cases be validated throughout the field period. When an interviewer fails a validation all their work is subject to 100 percent validation. Additionally, any case completed in less than 30 minutes is validated. A validation abstract form containing selected data collected in the CAPI interview is generated and used by the validator to guide the validation interview.
To achieve the goal of the MEPS-MPC the following data collections are implemented:
1. MPC Contact Guide/Screening Call. An initial screening call is placed to determine the type of facility, whether the practice or facility is in scope for the MEPS-MPC, the appropriate MEPS-MPC respondent and some details about the organization and availability of medical records and billing at the practice/facility. All hospitals, physician offices, home health agencies, institutions and pharmacies are screened by telephone. A unique screening instrument is used for each of the seven provider types in the MEPS-MPC.
2. Home Care Provider Questionnaire for Health Care Providers. This questionnaire is used to collect data from home health care agencies which provide medical care services to household respondents. Information collected includes type of personnel providing care, hours or visits provided per month, and the charges and payments for services received.
3. Home Care Provider Questionnaire for Non-Health Care Providers. This questionnaire is used to collect information about services provided in the home by non-health care workers to household respondents because of a medical condition; for example, cleaning or yard work, transportation, shopping, or child care.
4. Medical Event Questionnaire for Office-Based Providers. This questionnaire is for office-based physicians, including doctors of medicine (MDs) and osteopathy (DOs), as well as providers practicing under the direction or supervision of an MD or DO (e.g., physician assistants and nurse practitioners working in clinics). Providers of care in private offices as well as staff model HMOs are included.
5. Medical Event Questionnaire for Separately Billing Doctors. This questionnaire collects information from physicians identified by hospitals (during the Hospital Event data collection) as providing care to sampled persons during the course of inpatient, outpatient department or emergency room care, but who bill separately from the hospital.
6. Hospital Event Questionnaire. This questionnaire is used to collect information about hospital events, including inpatient stays, outpatient department, and emergency room visits. Hospital data are collected not only from the billing department, but from medical records and administrative records departments as well. Medical records departments are contacted to determine the names of all the doctors who treated the patient during a stay or visit. In many cases, the hospital administrative office also has to be contacted to determine whether the doctors identified by medical records billed separately from the hospital itself; the doctors that do bill separately from the hospital will be contacted as part of the Medical Event Questionnaire for Separately Billing Doctors. HMOs are included in this provider type.
7. Institutions Event Questionnaire. This questionnaire is used to collect information about institution events, including nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities and skilled nursing facilities. Institution data are collected not only from the billing department, but from medical records and administrative records departments as well. Medical records departments are contacted to determine the names of all the doctors who treated the patient during a stay. In many cases, the institution administrative office also has to be contacted to determine whether the doctors identified by medical records billed separately from the institution itself.
8. Pharmacy Data Collection Questionnaire. This questionnaire requests the national drug code (NDC) and when that is not available the prescription name, date prescription was filled, payments by source, prescription strength and form (when the NDC is not available), quantity, and person for whom the prescription was filled. When the NDC is available, we do not ask for prescription name, strength or form because that information is embedded in the NDC; this reduces burden on the respondent. Most pharmacies have the requested information available in electronic format and respond by providing a computer generated printout of the patient's prescription information. If the computerized form is unavailable, the pharmacy can report their data to a telephone interviewer. Pharmacies are also able to provide a CD-ROM with the requested information if that is preferred. HMOs are included in this provider type.
The MEPS is a multi-purpose survey. In addition to collecting data to yield annual estimates for a variety of measures related to health care use and expenditures, the MEPS also provides estimates of measures related to health status, consumer assessment of health care, health insurance coverage, demographic characteristics, employment and access to health care indicators. Estimates can be provided for individuals, families and population
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-HC and the MEPS-MPC. The MEPS-HC Core Interview will be completed by 15,093* (see note below Exhibit 1) “family level” respondents, also referred to as RU respondents. Since the MEPS-HC consists of 5 rounds of interviewing covering a full two years of data, the annual average number of responses per respondent is 2.5 responses per year. The MEPS-HC core requires an average response time of 86 minutes to administer. The Adult SAQ will be completed once a year by each person in the RU that is 18 years old and older, an estimated 28,254 persons. The Adult SAQ requires an average of 7 minutes to complete. The Diabetes care SAQ will be completed once a year by each person in the RU identified as having diabetes, an estimated 2,345 persons, and takes about 3 minutes to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey will be completed once for each medical provider seen by any RU member. The 14,489* RUs in the MEPS-HC will complete an average of 5.2 forms, which require about 3 minutes each to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey will be completed once for each pharmacy for any RU member who has obtained a prescription medication. RUs will complete an average of 3.1 forms, which take about 3 minutes to complete. About one third of all interviewed RUs will complete a validation interview as part of the MEPS-HC quality control, which takes an average of 5 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-HC are estimated to be 63,907 hours.
All 34,000 medical providers and pharmacies included in the MEPS-MPC will receive a screening call which will take 3 minutes on average. The MEPS-MPC uses 7 different questionnaires—6 for medical providers and 1 for pharmacies. Each questionnaire is relatively short and requires 3 to 5 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-MPC are estimated to be 18,914 hours. The total annual burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be 82,821 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this information collection. The annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC is estimated to be $1,389,339; the annual cost burden for the MEPS-MPC is estimated to be $285,680. The total annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be $1,675,019.
Exhibit 3 shows the total and annualized cost of this information collection. The cost associated with the design and data collection of the MEPS-HC and MEPS-MPC is estimated to be $51,401,596 in each of the three years covered by this information collection request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by October 22, 2012.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
Section 401(a) of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), Public Law 111-3, amended the Social Security Act (“the Act”) to enact section 1139A (42 U.S.C. 1320b-9a). Section 1139A(b) charged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with improving pediatric health care quality measures. Since CHIPRA was passed, AHRQ and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have been working together to implement selected provisions of the legislation related to children's health care quality. An initial core measure set for voluntary use by Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) was posted December 29, 2009 (
As required by CHIPRA, by January 1, 2011, AHRQ and CMS established the CHIPRA Pediatric Quality Measures Program (PQMP) in accordance with section 1139A(b)(1) of the Act to enhance select children's health care quality measures and develop new measures (
(1) Seven Centers of Excellence (CoEs) that are developing and/or enhancing children's health care quality measures through cooperative agreements with AHRQ in order to increase the portfolio of measures available to the public and private purchasers of children's health care services, providers and consumers (
(2) CHIPRA Coordinating and Technical Assistance Center (CCTAC);
(3) Two CHIPRA quality demonstration grantees (Illinois, a partner to the Florida grantee, and Massachusetts) funded by CMS to undertake new quality measure development as part of their grants
(4) The Subcommittee on Children's Healthcare Quality Measures of the AHRQ National Advisory Council on Healthcare Research and Quality (SNAC) that will review measures nominated through a public call for measures, as well as measures developed or enhanced by the CoEs, and make recommendations for an improved core set of children's health care quality measures and other CHIPRA purposes (
Section 1139A of the Act provides that improved core sets of children's health care quality measures be identified beginning January 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, for voluntary use by state Medicaid and CHIP programs and other CHIPRA purposes. AHRQ intends to solicit public nominations for children's health care quality measures using a standard measure nomination form in early 2013 and 2014. These solicitations will be undertaken by AHRQ to identify children's health care quality measures for review by the SNAC.
Section 1139A(b)(2) of the Act requires that the measures in the improved core sets shall, at a minimum, be:
(A) Evidence-based and, where appropriate, risk adjusted;
(B) Designed to identify and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in child health and the provision of health care;
(C) Designed to ensure that the data required for such measures is collected and reported in a standard format that permits comparison of quality and data at a State, plan, and provider level;
(D) Periodically updated; and
(E) Responsive to the child health needs, services, and domains of health care quality described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (a)(6)(A).
Hence, AHRQ, CMS and PQMP developed a CHIPRA Pediatric Quality Measures Program (PQMP) Candidate Measure Submission Form (Attachment A, hereinafter referred to as “CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form”). The CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form details the desirable attributes of measures and related definitions to provide operational guidance as specified in section 1139A(b)(2) of the Act. AHRQ intends to use this CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form to conduct a public call for measures early in calendar years 2013 and 2014 to solicit measures for consideration by the SNAC for the respective 2014 and 2015 improved core sets of children's health care quality measures.
The goals of the CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Form are to:
(1) Solicit nominations for children's health care quality measures in early 2013 and 2014 through public calls for measures, using a standardized data collection form;
(2) Use the information provided through the standardized data collection form to support SNAC review of children's health care quality measures nominated by the public and measures developed by the seven CoEs; and
(3) Identify measures for improved core sets of children's health care quality measures and for other CHIPRA purposes.
The process for review of the measures developed by the seven COEs will be the same as that for publicly nominated measures.
Respondents to these public calls for measures in 2013 and 2014 are expected to include pediatricians, researchers, measure developers, and measure stewards of children's health care quality measures.
This project is being conducted by AHRQ pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority under Title IX of the Public Health Service Act to conduct and support research to improve health care quality, and to fulfill a number of requirements under Title IV of CHIPRA, including requirements to identify candidate measures for public posting of an improved core set of children's health care quality measures by January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015.
To achieve the goals of this project, AHRQ intends to solicit submission of measures from the members of the public using the CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form, a standardized data collection tool. Data collection using the CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form will be adequate to achieve the goals of the project. Below is an outline of the type of data collected through the CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form and description of the information solicited from each nominator pursuant to section 1139A(b)(2) of the Act.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The information resulting from this data collection will be used to: (a) Improve and strengthen the initial core set of measures of health care quality established under CHIPRA (
All measures nominated by members of the public will be reviewed by members of the SNAC using the categories of desirable attributes detailed in the CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form. The SNAC will make recommendations to NAC which in turn will make recommendations to the AHRQ Director for consideration of select measures for inclusion in the public posting of an improved core set by January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015 for voluntary use by Medicaid and CHIP programs and other CHIPRA purposes.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for members of the public who will nominate measures through use of the online CHIPRA PQMP Candidate Measure Submission Form. We anticipate a maximum of 75 nominations each year with each nomination requiring 3.25 hours. The total burden is estimated to be 244 hours annually.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden for respondents' time to complete the online submission form for the public call for measures. The total cost burden is estimated to be $19,195 annually.
Exhibit 3 shows the estimated total and annualized cost over 3 years to the government for conducting this project. The total cost is estimated to be $275,270.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), announcement is made of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting on “AHRQ Patient Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Pathway to Independence Award (K99/ROC)”
November 1, 2012 (Open on November 1 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
Hyatt Regency Hotel Bethesda, One Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this meeting should contact: Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone (301) 427-1554.
Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities dictate.
A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.
Substantial segments of the SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for “AHRQ Patient Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00)” are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of five AHRQ subcommittee meetings.
The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. These meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d),'5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(6).
See below for dates of meetings:
The five meetings will take place in the same location:
(To obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)
In accordance with section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the scientific peer review groups listed above, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Kimberly S. Lane, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Anniston Community Health Survey: Follow-up and Dioxin Analyses (ACHS-II)—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In the past, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were used as coolants and lubricants in electrical equipment. They didn't burn easily and were good insulators. PCBs are no longer made in the U.S. They were banned in 1977 because they persist in the environment. Concerns grew about harm to health.
The City of Anniston, AL, was the site of the former Monsanto facility. PCBs were made there from 1929 to 1971. For decades, PCBs were released into the local air, soil, and surface water. In 1996, residents found out they were exposed. Concerns grew and led to litigation. In 2003, a settlement in favor of the residents was reached in state and federal courts.
The Anniston Environmental Health Research Consortium (AEHRC) was funded by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The AEHRC conducted the Anniston Community Health Survey (ACHS) from 2005 to 2007. Serum PCB levels in 766 Anniston adults were found to be three to seven times higher than in U.S. adults. Also, higher PCB levels were found in Anniston adults who had high blood pressure and diabetes.
The ATSDR and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plan to continue the work of the first ACHS. These agencies will conduct a follow-up study called the ACHS-II. It will be a repeated cross-sectional study. Data collection will be managed by the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and the Calhoun County Health Department (CCHD).
A sample of 500 adults will be selected from the first ACHS cohort. After informed consent, clinical assessments will be done. These will be for blood pressure, height, weight, and body girth. A questionnaire will be answered by computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs). Questions will be asked for health, demographic, diet, and lifestyle factors. The self-reported responses will be compared to laboratory analytes. For these, blood samples will be drawn and analyzed.
The ACHS-II will measure the same serum PCBs as in the first Anniston survey. In this way, changes in PCB levels can be studied. The ACHS-II will also include serum analytes for dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs, and other similar chemicals. Additional analytes include blood measures of heavy metals. Clinical biomarkers will include measures for thyroid, diabetes, lipids, and immune function. This will give a more complete profile of human exposures and health in Anniston, AL.
The ATSDR is requesting a two-year approval for this information collection.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. In total, they will spend 2 hours in the study.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Kimberly S. Lane, at 1600 Clifton Road, MS D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Assessment of the Psychosocial Impact of Newborn Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection—New—National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) and National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Each year in the United States, more than 30,000 children are born with congenital CMV infection. Approximately 80% develop normally, while the remaining 20% are born with or subsequently develop disabilities such as hearing loss or mental retardation. A similar number of children are affected by serious CMV-related disabilities than by several better-known childhood conditions, including Down syndrome and spina bifida.
The birth prevalence of congenital CMV infection is several times higher than the combined birth prevalence of all metabolic or endocrine disorders in the core U.S. newborn screening panel. Because newborn CMV screening is rarely performed, and because a definitive diagnosis of congenital CMV requires access to urine, saliva, or blood collected soon after birth, most infected children are never diagnosed. Newborn CMV screening offers some clear potential benefits, but few studies have assessed the potential for harm (e.g., increased parental anxiety, “fragile child syndrome”).
CDC is requesting OMB approval for one year to collect information about newborn CMV screening. The purpose of this information collection is to understand the psychosocial impact of newborn screening on parents whose infants underwent CMV screening as part of a routine infant CMV screening program in Houston, Texas. The potential study population includes approximately 70 CMV-infected children who were symptomatic at birth, 100 CMV-infected children who were asymptomatic at birth (20 of whom developed sequelae), and 50 controls that were CMV-uninfected. The goals of this information collection are to: (1) Document the positive and negative psychosocial impacts of newborn CMV screening on parents and their children; (2) identify modifiable factors that might increase positive psychosocial impacts and decrease negative psychosocial impacts of newborn CMV screening; (3) use what is learned about psychosocial impacts to identify key messages that parents need relative to newborn CMV screening and follow-up; and (4) to learn what challenges are associated with obtaining a congenital CMV diagnosis in the absence of CMV newborn screening.
Much of the potential study population is unique in that their children experienced newborn CMV screening as part of a previous research study. Universal CMV screening has not been recommended by medical associations or state or federal governments and as a result newborn CMV screening is not typically performed. The parents' experience with CMV screening and follow-up will help inform decisions about whether newborn CMV screening would be good public health policy. This study represents the first assessment of the experiences of parents whose children were screened for CMV at birth.
Respondents fall into four categories depending on the past experiences of their child who was screened for CMV:
• Parent Group 1 (PG1)—Child screened positive for congenital CMV at birth, asymptomatic at birth, but
• Parent Group 2 (PG2)—Child screened positive for congenital CMV at birth, asymptomatic at birth, but
• Parent Group 3 (PG3)—Child was diagnosed with congenital CMV and had symptoms at birth.
• Parent Group 4 (PG4)—Child screened negative for congenital CMV at birth.
Information will be collected from PG1 via focus groups, from PG2 and PG3 via interviews, and from all four parent groups via a mail survey. The focus group, interview and survey respondents will be asked to participate only once. It is estimated that 71 parents will participate in either individual interviews or focus groups and that 230 will participate in the mail survey. The interviews are planned to take 60 minutes while the focus groups will be held for 90 minutes. The survey is estimated to take 10 minutes per respondent to complete and mail based on previous administrations reported in the literature. Reading and responding to the focus group and interview recruitment letters is estimated to take 5 minutes each. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Kimberly S. Lane, at 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Exposure Assessment and Epidemiological Study of U.S. Workers Exposed to Carbon Nanotubes and Carbon Nanofibers—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Public Law 91-596 (Section 20[a][1] authorizes NIOSH to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. In this capacity, NIOSH will conduct an exposure assessment and epidemiological study of U.S. carbon nanotube (CNT) and carbon nanofiber (CNF) workers.
At present, because of the newness of the technology, much of the occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials occurs at the research and development (R&D) or pilot scale. There have been few reliable surveys of the size of the workforce exposed to nanomaterials. Health effects from exposure to nanomaterials are uncertain, but may be more severe than from larger-sized particles of the same material. This is due to the small size, high surface area per unit mass (i.e., specific surface area) or (in some cases) high aspect ratio of nanomaterials. Carbon nanotubes and nanofibers are among the nanomaterials of greatest interest from a public health perspective because of their potentially asbestiform properties (e.g., high aspect ratio) and toxicological evidence of possible fibrogenic, inflammatory, and clastogenic damage resulting from exposures at occupationally relevant levels. In addition, the useful properties of CNT and CNF have rendered them among the first nanomaterials to be commercially exploited in manufacturing settings. Thus, an epidemiologic study to determine whether early or late health effects occur from occupational exposure to CNT and CNF is warranted.
The proposed research is a cross-sectional study of the small current U.S. workforce involved with CNT and CNF in manufacturing and distribution, to be conducted in the following phases: 1) Industrywide exposure assessment study to evaluate worker exposure and further develop and refine measurement methods for CNT and CNF. This component will refine sampling and analysis protocols previously developed for the detection and quantification of CNT and CNF in US workplaces. 2) A cross-sectional study relating the best metrics of CNT and CNF exposure to markers of early pulmonary or cardiovascular health effects. After the sampling and analysis protocols have been established to measure CNT and CNF, an industrywide study of the association between exposure and health effects will be conducted. Medical examinations will be conducted and several biomarkers of early effect (for pulmonary fibrosis, cardiovascular disease, and genetic damage) will be measured in blood and sputum for workers exposed to a range of CNT and CNF levels.
The study will include a questionnaire with a three-fold purpose: (1) To determine whether study participants have any contraindications for certain medical procedures to be conducted (spirometry and sputum induction), (2) to assist in interpretation of the biomarker results, and (3) to inquire about current and past exposure to CNT, CNF, and other chemicals, dusts, and fumes. The questionnaire will be given by NIOSH personnel as a computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI). After administration of the CAPI, medical examinations will be conducted to evaluate pulmonary function (via spirometry) and blood pressure, and sputum and blood will be collected. Statistical analyses will be conducted to determine the nature of the relation between exposure to CNT
The proposed project supports the NIOSH legislatively mandated industrywide studies program that conducts epidemiological and exposure assessment research studies to identify the occupational causes of disease in the working population and their offspring and to effectively communicate study results to workers, scientists, industry, and the public.
The questionnaire will be administered one time only, at the worksite, to 100 workers involved in the production and use of CNT or CNT. The study will be carried out during the participants' regular work shift. There is no cost to respondents or their employers other than their time. We estimate that the average burden per response to be 22 minutes, and that the total burden to all respondents will be 37 hours (see table below).
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Administration on Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities (AIDD), ACF, HHS.
Announcing the award a single-source program expansion supplement to the University of Massachusetts for the Institute for Community Inclusion in Boston, MA, to support the additional employment grants that will be awarded.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities (AIDD) announces the award of a grant in the amount of $300,000 to the University of Massachusetts for the Institute for Community Inclusion, Boston, MA.
The project period for the award is from September 30, 2012 to September 29, 2013.
Ophelia McLain, Supervisory Program Specialist, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 2nd Floor East, Washington, DC 20447. Telephone: 202-690-7025; Email:
In September 2011, the Administration on Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities (AIDD) awarded a grant to the ICI to serve as the training and technical assistance (T/TA) provider to recipients of Partnerships in Employment Systems Change grants, also awarded that same year. AIDD has expanding the Employment efforts by awarding two additional Partnerships in Employment Systems Change grants in
The statutory authority is the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Section 161.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Bioequivalence Recommendations for Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium.” The recommendations provide specific guidance on the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for pentosan polysulfate sodium capsule.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 19, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Geoffrey Wu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9326.
In the
New drug application 020193 for Elmiron (pentosan polysulfate sodium) capsule was initially approved by FDA in September 1996. There are no approved ANDAs for this product. FDA is now issuing a draft guidance for industry on BE recommendations for generic pentosan polysulfate sodium capsule (Draft Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium Capsule BE Recommendations).
In March 2012, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Janssen), manufacturer of the reference listed drug (RLD), Elmiron, submitted (through its attorneys) a citizen petition requesting that FDA require that any ANDA referencing Elmiron meet certain conditions, including conditions related to demonstrating BE (Docket No. FDA-2012-P-0295). FDA is reviewing the issues raised in the petition. FDA will consider any comments on the Draft Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium Capsule BE Recommendations before responding to Janssen's citizen petition.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the design of BE studies to support ANDAs for pentosan polysulfate sodium capsule. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
During the afternoon session, the committee will discuss supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 021882/015, with the trade name EXJADE (deferasirox) tablets for oral suspension, application submitted by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. The proposed indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of chronic iron overload in patients with non-transfusion-dependent thalassemia syndromes (beta-thalassemia intermedia, HbE beta-thalassemia, and alpha-thalassemia) aged 10 years and older.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caleb Briggs at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Diane Goyette at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
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 Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Proposed Collection:
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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; (3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Charles, Hall, RPh, M.S., Chief, Pharmaceutical Management Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza North, Room 7149, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20891. Or call non-toll-free number 301-496-5725 or email your request, include your address to:
Comments Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60-days of the date of this publication.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.),notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of 24 single-source program expansion supplement grants under its Unaccompanied Alien Children's (UAC) Program where grantees provide a range of custodial/residential shelter care and services for recently arrived unaccompanied alien children.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of 24 single-source program expansion supplement grants for a total of $60,835,955. The additional funding provided to current grantees under ORR's UAC program will support services to unaccompanied alien children through September 30, 2012.
The ORR UAC grantees that have received single-source program expansion supplements are:
October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012.
Kenneth Tota, Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Telephone (202) 401-4858.
The expansion supplement grants will support the expansion of bed capacity to meet the number of unaccompanied alien children referrals from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The funding program is mandated by Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act to ensure appropriate placement of all referrals from the DHS. The program is tied to DHS apprehension strategies and a sporadic number of border crossers.
Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 6 U.S.C. 279(b) (A)-(J) and Section 235 (a)(5)(C) of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-457, (8 U.S.C. 1232), gives the ORR statutory authority to ensure the appropriate placement of all DHS UAC referrals within specified timeframes and
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement announces the award of three single-source program expansion supplement grants from its Unaccompanied Alien Children's Program to two organizations, Florence Crittenton Services of Orange County, Inc., in Fullerton, CA, and International Education Services, Inc., in Los Fresnos, TX.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant to two current grantees, for a total of $2,659,864. The additional funding provided by the awards will support services to unaccompanied alien children through September 30, 2012.
The supplement grant will support the expansion of bed capacity to meet the number of unaccompanied alien children referrals from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The funding program is mandated by Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act to ensure appropriate placement of all referrals from the DHS. The program is tied to DHS apprehension strategies and sporadic number of border crossers.
One expansion supplement award is made to Florence Crittenton Services of Orange County, Inc., in Fullerton, CA, in the amount of $226,800 to support expansion of bed capacity to meet the needs of the high number of unaccompanied alien children transferred from the DHS. Award funds will support services to unaccompanied alien children through September 30, 2012.
Two expansion supplement awards are made to International Education Services, Inc., in Los Fresnos, TX. One award for $1,588,827 will provide unaccompanied alien children with temporary 24-hour licensed shelter care in facilities in South Texas. The other award for $844,237 will support the International Education Services, Inc. Harlingen Foster Care Program that provides unaccompanied children with temporary 24-hour family care in private homes within the Cameron County in South Texas.
The period of support under these supplements is October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012.
Kenneth Tota, Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Telephone (202) 401-4858.
The UAC program has specific requirements for the provision of services to unaccompanied alien children. These grantee organizations are the only entities with the infrastructure, licensing, experience, and appropriate level of trained staff to meet the required service requirements and the urgent need for the expansion of services required to respond to unexpected arrivals of unaccompanied children. The program expansion supplement will support such services and alleviate the buildup of children waiting in border patrol stations for placement in shelter care.
Awards announced in this notice are authorized by Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. 6 U.S.C. 279(b)(A)-(J) and sections 235(a)(5)(C); 235(d) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, (8 U.S.C. 1232).
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of two urgent single-source grants from the Unaccompanied Alien Children's Program to Youth for Tomorrow in Bristow VA and Lincoln Hall in Lincolndale, NY.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of two urgent single-source grants for a total of $4,767,696. Award funds will support grants to two organizations that are providing services under the Unaccompanied Alien Children's program.
June 15, 2012—September 30, 2013.
Kenneth Tota, Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Telephone (202) 401-4858.
The grants will support the expansion of bed capacity to meet the number of unaccompanied alien children referrals from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The funding program is mandated by section 462 of the Homeland Security Act to ensure appropriate placement of all referrals from the DHS. The program is tied to DHS apprehension strategies and sporadic number of border crossers.
The program has specific requirements for the provision of services to unaccompanied alien children. Existing grantees are the only entities with the infrastructure, licensing, experience and appropriate level of trained staff to meet the required service requirements and the urgent need for expansion of services in response to unexpected arrivals of unaccompanied children. The program expansion supplement will support such services and alleviate the buildup of children waiting in border patrol stations for placement in shelter care.
Awards are authorized by Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 6 U.S.C. 279(b) (A)-(J) and section 235 (a)(5)(C) of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-457, 8 U.S.C. 1232.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before October 22, 2012. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import one Amur leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis) for the purpose of enhancement of the survival and propagation of the species.
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to acquire biological specimens from up to 125 northern sea otters (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax);
On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a general exclusion order against certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof. The ALJ alternatively recommended a limited exclusion order against certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof manufactured or sold by the respondents found in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 7, 2012. Comments should address whether issuance of a general exclusion order (or alternatively a limited exclusion order) in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the general exclusion order (or alternatively a limited exclusion order) would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 17, 2012.
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 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-804”) 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.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).
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 final initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 20) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding the remaining respondents, Shenzhen Reliap Industrial Co. (“Reliap”) and Yue Qiu Sheng (“Yue”), both of Shenzhen, China, in default and in violation of section 337. The Commission has also determined to review the ALJ's Order No. 19 denying respondents' motion for summary determination that complainants' breach of contract allegation is outside the scope of the investigation. The Commission is also requesting briefing on the issue on review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 Investigation No. 337-TA-791 (“the 791 investigation”) on July 20, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Twin-Star International, Inc. of Delray Beach, Florida and TS
The Commission's notice of investigation named Reliap, Yue, and Whalen Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. (“Whalen”) of San Diego, California as respondents. On July 3, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID terminating the investigation as to Whalen based on a consent order and settlement agreement.
On June 20, 2012, Twin-Star moved for an ID finding the remaining respondents, Reliap and Yue, in default and in violation of section 337 pursuant to Commission Rule 210.17, 19 CFR 210.17. The Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion.
On July 13, 2012, the ALJ granted Twin-Star's motion and issued the final ID in this investigation finding the remaining respondents in default and in violation of section 337 pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17 because they did not participate in the investigation following withdrawal of their counsel on March 12, 2012. The ID also contained the ALJ's recommended determination on remedy. Specifically, the ALJ recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order with respect to the defaulting respondents.
Also on July 13, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 19, denying a motion filed by Yue on December 11, 2011, for summary determination that Twin-Star's breach of contract claim is outside the scope of the investigation. On July 20, 2012, the Commission investigative attorney petitioned for review of Order No. 19 and the ALJ's final ID. Twin-Star filed a response in opposition on July 30, 2012.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's ID, Order No. 19, and the parties' briefing, the Commission has determined to review Order No. 19 and to review the final ID in part to the extent that it finds a violation of section 337 based on the breach of contract allegations. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
On review, the parties, interested government agencies, and any other interested persons are requested to submit briefing on the issue under review and to address in particular the following:
(1) Please explain whether a breach of contract claim can give rise to a violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(A), and discuss any relevant statutory language, legislative history, and legal precedent.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may issue an order that results in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d). 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,
When 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.
When 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. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
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 Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-791/826”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of 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 210.17, 42-43, 45-46 and 50 of
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
The proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by Nu-West Mining, Inc. and Nu-West Industries, Inc. (collectively “Nu-West”) against the United States under Sections 107 and 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 9613, seeking to hold the United States liable for past and future response costs relating to the clean-up of contamination at four phosphate mines in Southeast Idaho. The United States counterclaimed against Nu-West under Sections 107 and 113 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 9613, seeking to hold Nu-West liable for these response costs. The proposed Consent Decree resolves all asserted claims and counterclaims by allocating response costs between Nu-West and the United States.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the District of Idaho, 801 E. Sherman Street, Room 119, Pocatello, ID 83201. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
This Notice amends and replaces the original notice published on September 6, 2012, 77 Fed. Reg. 54926-54927. Notice is hereby given that on August 28, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree in
The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States' and the State of New Jersey's cost recovery and natural resource damages claims against Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. (“CDE”) under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601
In the proposed Consent Decree, CDE, an ability to pay party, and the United States and New Jersey agree to a stipulated judgment amount, 80 percent of the sum of the response cost and natural resource damage claims of the United States and New Jersey, or $367,453,449. CDE has agreed to pay, on a sliding scale, between 75 to 100 percent of portions of its insurance recoveries to the United States and New Jersey. In addition to payment of the potential recovery of insurance proceeds, CDE will make payments over three years totaling $1.11 million to the United States and New Jersey. All of these CDE payments will be divided between EPA, New Jersey, and the federal and state natural resource trustees. CDE will also place, as necessary, up to a total of $3.25 million into an escrow account for use in its state court insurance litigation relating to coverage for the Site. Finally, the Decree also resolves potential contribution claims and the State's cost claims against the Department of Defense and the General Services Administration. The federal agencies will pay $16,282,685 toward the United States' and the State's total past and estimated future response costs and natural resource damages.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
Notice of list of explosive materials.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841(d) and 27 CFR 555.23, the Department must publish and revise at least annually in the
The list becomes effective September 20, 2012.
William J. O'Brien, Industry Liaison Analyst; Explosives Industry Programs Branch; Firearms and Explosives Industry Division; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; United States Department of Justice; 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226 (202-207-8969).
The list is intended to include any and all mixtures containing any of the materials on the list. Materials constituting blasting agents are marked by an asterisk. While the list is comprehensive, it is not all-inclusive. The fact that an explosive material is not on the list does not mean that it is not within the coverage of the law if it otherwise meets the statutory definitions in 18 U.S.C. 841. Explosive materials are listed alphabetically by their common names followed, where applicable, by chemical names and synonyms in brackets.
The Department has not added any new terms to the list of explosive materials or removed or revised any listing since its last publication.
This list supersedes the List of Explosive Materials dated October 19, 2011 (Docket No. ATF 47N, 76 FR 64974).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841(d) and 27 CFR 555.23, I hereby designate the following as explosive materials covered under 18 U.S.C. 841(c):
Notice is hereby given that, on August 27, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASME 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 April 27, 2012. A notice was published in the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) Federal Advisory Committee (GAC) to discuss the Global Initiative, as described at
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, October 24, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
The meeting will take place at the Sheraton Premiere at Tysons Corner hotel, 8661 Leesburg Pike, Vienna (Tysons Corner), VA 22182, Phone: (703) 448-1234.
J. Patrick McCreary, Global Designated Federal Employee (DFE), Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 616-0532 [note: This is not a toll-free number]; Email:
This meeting is open to the public. Due to security measures, however, members of the public who wish to attend this meeting must register with Mr. J. Patrick McCreary at the above address at least (7) days in advance of the meeting. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Access to the meeting will not be allowed without registration. All attendees will be required to sign in at the meeting registration desk. Please bring photo identification and allow extra time prior to the meeting.
Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. McCreary at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
The GAC will act as the focal point for justice information systems integration activities in order to facilitate the coordination of technical, funding, and legislative strategies in support of the Administration's justice priorities.
The GAC will guide and monitor the development of the Global information sharing concept. It will advise the Assistant Attorney General, OJP; the Attorney General; the President (through the Attorney General); and local, state, tribal, and federal policymakers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The GAC will also advocate for strategies for accomplishing a Global information sharing capability.
Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the DFE.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 12:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Local Time.
This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference
Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452, fax (202) 358-4118, or
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topic: Government Performance and Results Act Review.
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Friday, October 12, 2012, 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. local time.
NASA Johnson Space Center, NASA Parkway, Building 1, Room 966, Houston, TX 77058.
Ms. Harmony Myers, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Executive Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1857.
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its Fourth Quarterly Meeting for 2012. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include:
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. Attendees will be required to sign a visitor's register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Any member of the public desiring to attend the ASAP 2012 Fourth Quarterly Meeting at the Johnson Space Center must provide their full name and company affiliation (if applicable) to Ms. Susan Burch at
During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA and should be received 2 working days in advance. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. To reserve a seat, file a written statement, or make a verbal presentation, please contact Ms. Susan Burch via email at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Thursday, October 11, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, October 12, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Rooms 6H45, 6H45, and 7H45 respectively, Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452, fax (202) 358-4118, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1.
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as subsequently amended, includes a statutory charge to “* * * provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources, and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government.” The NSCG is designed to comply with these mandates by providing information on the supply and utilization of the nation's scientists and engineers.
The NSF uses the information from the NSCG to prepare congressionally mandated reports such as
The U.S. Census Bureau, as in the past, will conduct the NSCG for NSF. The survey data collection will begin in February 2013 using web and mail questionnaires. Nonrespondents to the web or mail questionnaire will be followed up by computer-assisted telephone interviewing. The survey will be collected in conformance with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002, and the individual's response to the survey is voluntary. NSF will ensure that all information collected will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for statistical purposes.
2.
3.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The full submission may be found at:
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as subsequently amended, includes a statutory charge to “* * * provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources, and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government.” The SDR is designed to comply with these mandates by providing information on the supply and utilization of the nation's doctoral scientists and engineers.
The NSF uses the information from the SDR to prepare congressionally mandated reports such as
The survey data collection will begin in February 2013 by web survey, mail questionnaire, and computer-assisted telephone interview. The survey will be collected in conformance with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002, and the individual's response to the survey is voluntary. NSF will ensure that all information collected will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for statistical purposes.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO). Reference the NITRD Web site at:
Notice of meetings.
Dr. Grant Miller at
The JET, established in 1997, provides for information sharing among Federal agencies and non-Federal participants with interest in high performance research networking and networking to support science applications. The JET reports to the Large Scale Networking (LSN) Coordinating Group (CG).
Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on September 17, 2012.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO). Reference the NITRD Web site at:
Notice of meetings.
Dr. Grant Miller at
The MAGIC Team, established in 2002, provides a forum for information sharing among Federal agencies and non-Federal participants with interests and responsibility for middleware, Grid, and cloud projects. The MAGIC Team reports to the Large Scale Networking (LSN) Coordinating Group (CG).
Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on September 17, 2012.
2:00 p.m., Monday, October 1, 2012.
1325 G Street NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.
Open.
Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate Secretary (202) 220-2376;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft report; request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is issuing for public comment the Draft Comparative Environmental Evaluation of Alternatives for Handling Low-Level Radioactive Waste Spent Ion Exchange Resins from Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors.
Please submit comments by January 18, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publically available, by searching on
•
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Stephen Lemont, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5163; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC- NRC-2012-0218 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC- NRC-2012-0218 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 the draft report, the NRC staff identifies and compares potential environmental impacts of six alternatives for managing low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) spent ion exchange resins (IERs) generated at commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs). This comparative environmental evaluation has been conducted consistent with Option 2 in the NRC staff's paper for the Commission, SECY-10-0043, “Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,” April 7, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090410246), which identified policy, safety, and regulatory issues associated with LLRW blending, provided options for an NRC blending position, and proposed that the NRC staff revise the Commission position on blending to be risk-informed and performance based. Option 2 of SECY-10-0043 was approved by the Commission in the October 13, 2010 Staff Requirements Memorandum, SRM-SECY-10-0043, “Staff Requirements—SECY-10-0043—Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste” (ADAMS Accession No. ML102861764).
Additionally, in consideration of stakeholder concerns expressed regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the blending of certain LLRW, as documented in the NRC's Official Transcript of its January 14, 2010, “Public Meeting on Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste” (ADAMS Accession No. ML100220019), in SECY-10-0043, Option 2, the NRC staff also proposed that “* * * disposal of blended ion exchange resins from a central processing facility would be compared to direct disposal of the resins, onsite storage of certain wastes when disposal is not possible and further volume reduction of the Class B and C concentration resins.” The purpose of the draft report is to address this comparison of IER waste handling alternatives. The six alternatives evaluated in the draft report include the four identified by the NRC staff in SECY-10-0043, plus two additional alternatives that represent variations on the disposal of blended ion exchange resins from a central processing facility and volume reduction of the Class B and C concentration resins alternatives. The assumptions and methodologies used in the staff's evaluation and the evaluation results are documented in the draft report. Additional information regarding the draft report is presented in Section IV, “Draft Report Overview,” of this document.
In the comparative environmental evaluation presented in the draft report, the alternatives are described and potential environmental impacts of the alternatives are: (1) identified for a range of resource or impact areas (e.g., air quality, ecological resources, public and occupational health, transportation, waste management, water resources); and (2) compared in terms of their relative potential effects on human health and the environment. For reasons discussed in the draft report, the six alternatives are generic and not location-specific, and the comparative environmental evaluation of the alternatives is largely qualitative. An exception is that potential transportation impacts are assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Furthermore, the evaluation is based on conservative, often bounding assumptions regarding the alternatives and various aspects of the analysis. This
Ion exchange resins are small, bead-like materials used at commercial NPPs to capture radioactive contaminants dissolved in water used in plant operations. Over time, the IERs lose their ability to remove the contaminants from the water and the resins become “spent” and must be removed and replaced. The NRC defines three classes of LLRW—Class A, Class B, and Class C—in its regulations in section 61.55 of Title 10 of the
Currently, there are four licensed, operating LLRW disposal facilities in the United States. One of these facilities is licensed to dispose of, and can accept, Class A LLRW from most states. The other three facilities are licensed to dispose of Class A, B, and C LLRW, but can accept these wastes only from a limited number of states, although one of these facilities may receive approval to import LLRW from additional states in the future. As a result, all U.S. commercial NPPs (which currently include 104 operating nuclear reactors at 65 NPP locations) can dispose of their Class A LLRW spent IERs, but more than 40 of the 65 operating NPPs do not currently have access to a disposal facility for their Class B and C concentration spent IERs. Given this situation, LLRW processing and waste disposal companies are exploring alternatives for managing Class B and C concentration spent IERs.
One of these alternatives is to use a centralized processing facility to blend small volumes of higher-activity Class B and C concentration spent IERs with larger volumes of low activity Class A concentration spent IERs to produce Class A waste. Potential environmental impacts of this alternative, as compared to potential impacts of the other alternatives, are described in the draft report.
Specifically, the six alternatives evaluated in the draft report are:
• Alternative 1A—Direct disposal of blended Class A, B, and C spent IER LLRW from a central processing facility where mechanical mixing would be used to blend the spent IERs to produce Class A waste;
• Alternative 1B—Direct disposal of blended Class A, B, and C spent IER LLRW from a central processing facility where thermal processing would be used to blend the spent IERs to produce Class A waste;
• Alternative 2—Direct disposal of the Class A, B, and C spent IER LLRW (without blending);
• Alternative 3—Direct disposal of the Class A spent IERs, with long-term onsite storage of the Class B and C concentration spent IERs at the NPPs (including construction (expansion) of the waste storage facilities at the NPPs), followed by disposal of the Class B and C spent IERs at the end of the long-term storage period;
• Alternative 4A—Direct disposal of the Class A spent IERs, with volume reduction (by thermal processing) of the Class B and C concentration spent IERs, followed by long-term storage of the volume-reduced Class B and C concentration spent IERs (including construction of a storage facility at an existing LLRW disposal site), and then disposal at the end of the long-term storage period; and
• Alternative 4B—Direct disposal of the Class A spent IERs, with volume reduction (by thermal processing) of the Class B and C concentration spent IERs, then disposal of the volume-reduced Class B and C spent IERs.
As mentioned earlier, the comparative environmental evaluation is based on a number of assumptions. For example, the baseline for the evaluation is current land use. This means that, with the exception of the construction of the long-term waste storage facilities considered in Alternatives 3 and 4A, the evaluation assumes that no new IER handling, processing, and disposal facilities will be constructed and, therefore, does not revisit the impacts of construction of any of these facilities. In addition, the evaluation assumes that these facilities operate under licenses from the NRC or an Agreement State, and that all activities conducted in the alternatives would be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local legal and regulatory requirements.
Additionally, each alternative is considered individually in the evaluation (i.e., each alternative is assumed to be implemented at the exclusion of all the other alternatives). There is no mix of alternatives, and all spent IERs generated at all 65 NPPs are assumed to be managed under each alternative. The staff recognizes that Agreement State requirements and other factors could prevent some NPPs from using some alternatives, and that in actual practice, all spent IERs generated at all 65 NPPs would not be managed under any single alternative. Therefore, the assumption that all spent IERs are managed under each alternative results in conservative estimates of the potential impacts of each alternative.
The assumptions used in this evaluation, such as those previously described, are reasonable and consistent with SECY-10-0043, Option 2, which established the basis for the comparative environmental evaluation. These assumptions are also necessary to place all six alternatives on a relatively equal footing, which helps avoid bias in the results of the evaluation.
The assessment of potential environmental effects of the six alternatives evaluated the following resource or impact areas: Air quality, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, noise, public and occupational health, soil, transportation, waste management, and water resources. The following resource and impact areas were eliminated from detailed consideration for reasons discussed in the draft report: Accidents and other off-normal conditions, environmental justice, geology and minerals, land use, socioeconomics, and visual and scenic resources. In addition, to the extent practicable, the evaluation of potential environmental impacts identifies and accounts for generally accepted impact mitigation measures in each resource or impact area that would typically be employed in general industry practice. In accordance with the standard of significance that has been established by the NRC for assessing environmental impacts, using the standards of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27 as a basis, each impact
• SMALL. The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
• MODERATE. The environmental effects are sufficient to noticeably alter, but not destabilize important attributes of the resource.
• LARGE. The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The evaluation concludes that the potential environmental impacts of all six alternatives in all resource and impact areas would be SMALL, with the exception of potential impacts on historic and cultural resources from construction of long-term waste storage facilities in Alternatives 3 and 4A, which could be SMALL to MODERATE. Reasons for the mostly SMALL impacts, by resource or impact area, are discussed in the Draft Report.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG; request for public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is requesting public comment on Chapter 7, Instrumentation and Control Systems, augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” for instrumentation and control upgrades and NUREG-1537, Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria,” for instrumentation and control upgrades. This draft chapter of NUREG-1537, Part 1 and Part 2, provides revised guidance for preparing and reviewing applications to amend a facility operating license for I&C upgrades.
Comments may be submitted by December 4, 2012. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publically available, by searching on
•
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mr. Duane A. Hardesty, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20005-0001; telephone: 301-415-3724; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0167 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0167 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing this notice to solicit public comment on Chapter 7, Instrumentation and Control System, augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” for Instrumentation and Control upgrades and NUREG-1537, Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria,” for Instrumentation and Control upgrades. After the NRC staff considers public comments, it will make a determination regarding issuance of the final NUREG.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on October 4-5, 2012, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
[
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463, and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
If attending this meeting please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240) 888-9835 to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is announcing the availability of Technical Specifications (TSs) Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, “Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours per Month,” for plant-specific adoption. Additionally, the NRC staff finds the proposed TS (Volume 1) and TS Bases (Volume 2) changes in Traveler TSTF-522 acceptable for inclusion in the following Standard Technical Specifications (STS): NUREG-1430, “[STS] Babcock and Wilcox Plants,” NUREG-1431 “[STS] Westinghouse Plants,” NUREG-1432 “[STS] Combustion Engineering Plants,” NUREG-1433 “[STS] General Electric BWR/4 Plants,” NUREG-1434, “[STS] General Electric BWR/6 Plants.”
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0071 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ms. Michelle C. Honcharik, Senior Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-1774 or email at
TSTF-522, Revision 0, is applicable to all nuclear reactor power plants. The proposed change revises the surveillance requirements (SRs) which currently require operating the ventilation system for at least 10 continuous hours with the heaters operating every 31 days or at a frequency controlled in accordance with the surveillance frequency control program (SFCP). The SRs would be changed to require at least 15 continuous minutes of ventilation system operation with heaters operating every 31 days or at a frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP.
The NRC staff has reviewed the model application for TSTF-522 and has found it acceptable for use by licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are responsible for reviewing the NRC's staff SE and the applicable technical bases, providing any necessary plant-specific information, and assessing the completeness and accuracy of their license amendment request (LAR). The NRC will process each amendment application responding to the Notice of Availability according to applicable NRC rules and procedures.
The proposed change does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternate approach or proposing changes other than those proposed in TSTF-522, Revision 0. However, significant deviations from the approach recommended in this notice or the inclusion of additional changes to the license will require additional NRC staff review. This may increase the time and resources needed for the review or result in NRC staff rejection of the LAR. Licensees desiring significant deviations or additional changes should instead submit an LAR that does not claim to adopt TSTF-522, Revision 0.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add Priority Mail Contract 42 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with the filing.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs; make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs; and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-47 and CP2012-57 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 42 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than September 21, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Natalie Rea Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-47 and CP2012-57 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie Rea Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than September 21, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add Priority Mail Contract 43 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with the filing.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-48 and CP2012-58 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 43 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than September 21, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Natalie Rea Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-48 and CP2012-58 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie Rea Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than September 21, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a-25 requires registered broker-dealers to electronically submit securities transaction information, including identifiers for prime brokerage arrangements, average price accounts, and depository institutions, in a standardized format when requested by the Commission staff. In addition, paragraph (a)(3)(c) of Rule 17a-25 requires broker-dealers to submit, and keep current, contact person information for electronic blue sheets (“EBS”) requests. The Commission uses the information for enforcement inquiries or investigations and trading reconstructions, as well as for inspections and examinations.
The Commission estimates that it sends approximately 7,169 electronic blue sheet requests per year to clearing broker-dealers, who in turn submit an average 87,454 responses.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an email to:
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Drucker, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2006.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of DynaMotive Energy Systems Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Gate to Wire Solutions, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended November 30, 2009.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 18, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 1, 2012.
By the Commission.