Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Drug Control Policy Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Justice Programs Office
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the Asian longhorned beetle regulations by adding portions of Worcester County, MA, and Clermont County, OH, to the list of quarantined areas and by removing a portion of Suffolk County, NY, from the list of quarantined areas. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the artificial spread of Asian longhorned beetle to noninfested areas of the United States and to relieve restrictions on certain areas that were no longer necessary.
Effective on September 21, 2012, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 77 FR 31720-31722 on May 30, 2012.
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulations, Permits and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2352.
In an interim rule
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before July 30, 2012. We received no comments by that date. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the plum pox regulations to provide for the payment of compensation to eligible owners of non-fruit-bearing ornamental tree nurseries and to increase the amount of compensation that may be paid to eligible owners of commercial stone fruit orchards and fruit tree nurseries whose trees are required to be destroyed in order to prevent the spread of plum pox. The interim rule also provided updated instructions for the submission of claims for compensation. These changes were necessary to provide adequate compensation to persons who are economically affected by the plum pox quarantine and the associated State and Federal eradication efforts.
Effective on September 21, 2012, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 77 FR 5381-5385 on February 3, 2012.
Ms. Lynn Evans-Goldner, Plum Pox National Program Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 160, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2286.
The regulations in Subpart—Plum Pox (7 CFR 301.74 through 301.74-5), referred to below as the regulations, quarantine areas of the United States where plum pox has been detected and restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles (e.g., trees, seedlings, root stock, budwood, branches, twigs, and leaves of susceptible
In addition to the quarantine and interstate movement restrictions in the regulations, § 310.74-5 also provides for
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 3, 2012. We received three comments by that date. The comments were from a State agricultural agency, a fruit grower, and an organization of State plant regulatory agencies. Two commenters fully supported the action, with one of these commenters encouraging the expanded use of compensation for producers who sustain losses due to quarantine plant pests and regulatory actions associated with these pests.
The third commenter said that the interim rule makes reference to “commercial stone fruit orchards and fruit tree nurseries” without defining fruit tree nursery. The commenter also expressed concern that his fruit tree nursery does not qualify for compensation.
In § 301.74-5, paragraph (a)(2) describes the eligibility criteria for compensation for owners of fruit tree nurseries. Those eligibility criteria and the considerations in paragraph (b) that determine payment amounts specify that the plants affected by an emergency action notification are plants that have been produced for commercial sale, which is not the case in the situation described by the commenter.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, this action has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule; technical amendment.
In a final rule that was published in the
Dr. Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager-Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2018.
The phytosanitary treatment regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 (referred to below as the regulations) set out the general requirements for performing treatments and certifying or approving treatment facilities for fruits, vegetables, and other articles to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests or noxious weeds into or through the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture administers these regulations.
In a final rule
Paragraph (c) of § 319.56-46 indicates that each consignment of mangoes must be inspected jointly by APHIS and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of India as part of the required preclearance inspection activities. Paragraph (e) of § 319.56-46 also indicates that joint inspection by APHIS and the NPPO of India is required. While joint inspection and preclearance are practical when irradiation treatment is applied in the country of origin, it is more useful and cost effective for the NPPO of India to inspect the fruit in India and for APHIS to inspect the fruit upon arrival in the United States when irradiation treatment is applied in the United States. This also ensures compliance with the standard
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for General Electric Company GEnx-1B54, GEnx-1B58, GEnx-1B64, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B70, GEnx-1B54/P1, GEnx-1B58/P1, GEnx-1B64/P1, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/72/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, GEnx-1B75/P1, GEnx-2B67, and GEnx-2B67B turbofan engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections (UI) of certain part number (P/N) fan mid shafts (FMS) for cracks. This AD was prompted by a report of an FMS failure and a report of a crack found in another FMS. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the FMS resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane.
This AD is effective September 21, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 21, 2012.
We must receive comments on this AD by October 22, 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 General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7742; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
On July 28, 2012, we received a report of a GEnx-1B engine failure installed on a Boeing 787 (B787) airplane. Boeing was conducting routine ground testing of the B787, before aircraft delivery. During a taxi test, one engine's FMS fractured just aft of the coupling nut. The low-pressure turbine (LPT) rotor shifted axially backwards, resulting in LPT blade and vane clashing. The LPT case contained the failure and debris was released out the tailpipe. There was no engine overspeed as the LPT rotor remained coupled to the fan rotor at the FMS spline. On August 14, 2012, we received a second report concerning the GEnx engine, this time about an FMS, installed in a GEnx-1B engine, that was found cracked during an on-wing UI. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the FMS resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GEnx-1B S/B 72-0107, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2012, and SB No. GEnx-2B S/B 72-0091, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2012. The SBs describe procedures for performing UI inspections of FMS P/N 2331M20G02, P/N 2332M81G01, and P/N 2332M33G01.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.”
The SBs require an initial FMS inspection within 30 days of the SB date. This AD requires an initial FMS inspection before further flight.
We consider this AD interim action. Root cause is still under investigation, but the failure of the FMS is likely due to environmentally assisted cracking; a type of corrosive cracking that is time-dependent.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule based on the reported engine failure, the crack find, and that the root
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 11 GE GEnx turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 9 work-hours per engine to perform the UI of the FMS, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. The estimated cost of one set of inspection tooling is $105,000. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $113,415.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 21, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to:
(1) General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B54, GEnx-1B58, GEnx-1B64, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B70, GEnx-1B54/P1, GEnx-1B58/P1, GEnx-1B64/P1, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/72/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, and GEnx-1B75/P1 turbofan engines with fan mid shaft (FMS) part number (P/N) 2331M20G02 or P/N 2332M81G01, installed; and
(2) GE GEnx-2B67 and GEnx-2B67B turbofan engines with FMS P/N 2332M33G01, installed.
This AD was prompted by a report of an FMS failure and a report of a crack found in another FMS. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the FMS resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Perform an initial UI for cracks in the FMS before further flight.
(2) Thereafter, perform repetitive UIs for cracks in the FMS within every 90 days since-last-inspection.
(3) Remove any cracked FMS from service before further flight.
(4) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, use paragraphs 3.A and 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(9) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GEnx-1B S/B 72-0107, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2012, to do the inspections.
(5) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, use paragraphs 3.A and 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(9) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEnx-2B S/B 72-0091, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2012, to do the inspections.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, if you performed the initial inspection before the effective date of this AD using GE SB No. GEnx-1B S/B 72-0107, dated August 17, 2012, or Revision 1, dated August 24, 2012, you met the requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(2) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, if you performed the initial inspection before the effective date of this AD using GE SB No. GEnx-2B S/B 72-0091, dated August 22, 2012, you met the requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(3) For engines listed in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, if an initial inspection was performed before the effective date of this AD using GE Field Engineering Instruction (FEI) GEnx-1B No. 2012-014 Fan Mid Shaft Inspection, or FEI GEnx-2B No. 2012-017 Fan Mid Shaft Inspection, you met the requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7742; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) General Electric Company Service Bulletin No. GEnx-1B S/B 72-0107, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2012.
(ii) General Electric Company Service Bulletin No. GEnx-2B S/B 72-0091, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2012.
(3) For General Electric Company service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) is amending its technical standards to change the order of the first five sections; add definitions and amend existing definitions; amend requirements and time restrictions for grandfathered Class II gaming systems; amend the requirements concerning minimum odds for Class II games; amend standards for test labs; remove references to the Federal Communications Commission and Underwriters Laboratory; require a player interface to display a serial number and date of manufacture; amend requirements concerning approval of downloads to a Class II gaming system; and clarify the term “alternate standard.”
Michael Hoenig, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-632-7003; email:
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
On November 18, 2010, the NIGC issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Consultation advising the public that the NIGC endeavored to conduct a comprehensive review of its regulations and requesting public comment on which were most in need of revision, in what order the Commission should review its regulations, and the process NIGC should utilize to make revisions. 75 FR 70680. On April 4, 2011, after consulting with tribes and reviewing all comments, the NIGC published a Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule (NRR) setting out a consultation schedule and process for review. 76 FR 18457. Part 547 was included in the third regulatory group reviewed pursuant to the NRR.
On July 8, 2011, the Commission began a series of tribal consultations on part 547. Based in part on the recommendations to the Commission during consultations, on August 10, 2011, the Commission requested tribes nominate tribal representatives to serve on a Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist the Commission in drafting changes to part 543 and these technical standards. Beginning on October 20, 2011, the TAC held four meetings in which the Commission participated. All of the meetings were open to the public and three of the four were transcribed. On January 12, 2011, as a result of those meetings, the TAC submitted a proposed part 547 regulation to the Commission.
Upon reviewing the TAC's recommendation, and taking into consideration comments received through tribal consultations, the Commission published a discussion draft of the amended technical standards on its Web site. The discussion draft adopted a number of the TAC's recommendations, such as moving requirements that more appropriately belong to the Minimum Internal Control Standards found at 25 CFR part 543.
After publishing the discussion draft, the Commission conducted consultations in Mayetta, KS and San Diego, CA. In addition to tribal consultations, the Commission requested public comment on the discussion draft. Considering the comments received in response to the discussion draft, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on June 1, 2012. 77 FR 32465. The NPRM invited interested parties to participate in the rulemaking process by submitting comments and any supporting data to the NIGC by July 31, 2012. After receiving several requests to extend the comment period, the Commission published notification in the
In addition to soliciting public comment in the
In response to our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published June 1, 2012, 77 FR 32465, we received the following comments.
Upon review of the standards, the Commission concluded that this definition is not necessary and has led to confusion. Therefore, it was removed from the proposed rule and not reinserted into this final rule.
When implemented in 2008, the part 547 technical standards introduced several new requirements for Class II gaming systems designed to protect the security and integrity of Class II gaming systems and tribal operations. The Commission understood, however, that some existing Class II gaming systems might not meet all of the requirements of the technical standards. Therefore, to avoid any potentially significant economic and practical consequences of requiring immediate compliance, the Commission implemented a five-year “grandfather period” for eligible gaming systems. The Commission believed that a five year period was sufficient for market forces to move equipment toward compliance with the standards.
To qualify as a grandfathered game pursuant to the current regulations, a gaming system must have been submitted to a testing laboratory within 120 days of November 10, 2008. The testing laboratory must have then reviewed the gaming system for compliance with a specific, minimum set of requirements, and have issued a report to the applicable TGRA, which must have then approved the gaming system for grandfather status. At the end of the five year period—November 10, 2013—the grandfathered systems must be brought into compliance with the requirements of part 547 or removed from play.
Other commenters noted that grandfathered games are valid, legal games, which have never presented, nor do they now present a risk of any kind to either the tribes or patrons. Commenters stated that they do not understand how a game can be safe and reliable one day, but not the very next. According to these commenters, no evidence has been provided that grandfathered games present some hidden danger. If there is something wrong with a particular game, though, the TGRA will act to correct it.
Other commenters point out that tribes obtained court decisions determining that certain grandfathered games are lawful Class II games. Some commenters request the NIGC include a provision explicitly stating that nothing in this part is intended to prohibit the continued use of any gaming system or component ruled to be Class II by any judicial rulings.
In lieu of mandating grandfathered systems by removed by a specific date, other commenters suggested that a more reasoned regulatory approach would be one in which grandfathered Class II gaming systems are eliminated from operation through attrition and/or market forces. One commenter noted the Commission's calculation that such removal through attrition or market forces would have occurred within the five year sunset provision was clearly wrong.
The Commission agrees with commenters, however, that the prior Commission's analysis regarding the continued economic viability of the grandfathered systems has proven to be mistaken. The Commission established the five year sunset provision in the midst of a much stronger economy. In the time that has followed the economic downturn, though, many tribal gaming operations have set new priorities that may require keeping a grandfathered system on the gaming floor for a longer period of time.
Balancing those economic needs against a risk that increases as technology advances and grandfathered machines remain static, the Commission extended the grandfathered system by an additional five years. Under this final rule, a grandfathered system may continue in operation until November 10, 2018.
The Commission declines, however, to insert language conveying that nothing in this part is intended to prohibit the continued use of any gaming system or component ruled to be Class II by any judicial rulings. Including such a provision may lead to the false impression that this part is intended to address classification. It is not. Nothing in part 547 bears on the classification of a game as Class II or Class III. The provision requires only that, for any Class II game to be available for play, the game must have
The Commission understands, however, there are several Class II gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008 that may not have been submitted for grandfathering certification within 120 days of November 10, 2008, as the current rule requires. The Commission heard myriad reasons as to why a manufacturer or gaming operation may not have submitted systems for grandfathering certification. For example, Class II systems that, at the time, seemed unmarketable have once again become in demand for economic reasons. The Commission agrees that games that would otherwise be usable as grandfathered Class II system should be eligible for certification. For this reason, the Commission is reopening the time period to certify a Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008, as a grandfathered system.
The Commission also amended the language of § 547.5(b) to clarify that, if a grandfather system is brought into full compliance with this part, it is no longer considered a grandfathered system and the strictures of §§ 547.5(a) and (b) no longer apply.
“Any financial instrument storage components managed by Class II gaming system software must be located within
“Attendant paid win” does not encompass “attendant paid progressive wins.” They are industry terms that have separate and distinct meanings. For example, Arizona Class III gaming compacts require that an attendant paid jackpot meter “shall not accumulate progressive amounts,” because attendant paid progressive payouts are recorded separately. As a result, if the Commission leaves “each attendant paid progressive win” off of the list of events that trigger a check of the affected data, it would be leaving a gap in the testing standards for critical memory. Therefore, the Commission has reinserted the requirement in this final rule.
The NPRM removed references to entertaining displays from both of these sections. Nearly all of the comments expressed support for the change. Comments focused on the fact that the entertaining display has no significance to the outcome of the game. One commenter, however, opposed this change. The commenter suggested that the revision to § 547.8(a)(2)(ii) would require the game display to “go blank” between games.
The commenter also objected to the discussion draft no longer requiring last game recall to include the entertaining display. The commenter noted that when a pay-table on a player interface indicates that certain combinations of symbols will result in certain prizes, a player has a reasonable right to expect a prize if that combination of symbols appears on the pay line of the “entertainment only” display. The commenter asserts that if a game posts a prize schedule corresponding to the entertaining display instead of, or in addition to, the bingo card, and a prize paying combination of symbols appears in the entertaining display but no prizes are awarded, the integrity of the gaming system and reputation of the tribe may be called into question.
The Commission agrees that the reputation of an operation is of utmost importance and can reach beyond a particular facility to bolster or harm the reputation of Indian gaming. However, the game of bingo is dictated by the ball draw and the bingo card, not the entertaining display. This is made clear by the disclaimer required by § 547.16, clarifying that actual prizes are determined by bingo play not the entertaining display. For the technical standards to require last game recall to include the entertaining display would incorrectly emphasize an aspect of the game that has no bearing on its outcome.
The Commission also disagrees with the commenter's assessment that, if the entertaining display indicates a win, the patron should be paid regardless of the bingo results. Prizes should only be awarded on Class II electronic bingo games if the patron has won according to the bingo card.
Finally, this final rule clarifies that the TGRA may appeal the Chair's decision to approve or object to an alternate standard pursuant to 25 CFR subchapter H. The Commission believes that, because the rule requires the TGRA to approve and submit the alternate standard for NIGC review, the TGRA should be the entity to appeal a Chair decision it disagrees with.
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions. Nor will the rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501
Gambling, Indian—Indian lands, Indian—tribal government.
25 U.S.C. 2706(b).
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A)(i), permits the use of electronic, computer, or other technologic aids in connection with the play of Class II games. This part establishes the minimum technical standards governing the use of such aids.
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) The TGRA submits the Class II gaming system software that affects the play of the Class II game, together with the signature verification required by § 547.8(f) to a testing laboratory recognized pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section within 120 days after October 22, 2012;
(2) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), § 547.14, and any additional technical standards adopted by the TGRA;
(3) The testing laboratory provides the TGRA with a formal written report setting forth and certifying to the findings and conclusions of the test;
(4) The TGRA makes a finding, in the form of a certificate provided to the supplier or manufacturer of the Class II gaming system, that the Class II gaming system qualifies for grandfather status under the provisions of this section. A TGRA may make such a finding only upon receipt of a testing laboratory's report that the Class II gaming system is compliant with § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), § 547.14, and any other technical standards adopted by the TGRA. If the TGRA does not issue the certificate, or if the testing laboratory finds that the Class II gaming system is not compliant with § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), § 547.14, or any other technical standards adopted by the TGRA, then the gaming system must immediately be removed from play and not be utilized.
(5) The TGRA retains a copy of any testing laboratory's report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the report remains available to the public for play; and
(6) The TGRA retains a copy of any certificate of grandfather status so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the certificate remains available to the public for play.
(b)
(1) Grandfathered Class II gaming systems may continue in operation for a period of ten years from November 10, 2008.
(2) Grandfathered Class II gaming systems may only be used as approved by the TGRA. The TGRA must transmit its notice of that approval, identifying the grandfathered Class II gaming system and its components, to the Commission.
(3) Remote communications may only be allowed if authorized by the TGRA.
(4) As permitted by the TGRA, individual hardware or software components of a grandfathered Class II gaming system may be repaired or replaced to ensure proper functioning, security, or integrity of the grandfathered Class II gaming system.
(5) All modifications that affect the play of a grandfathered Class II gaming system must be approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, except for the following:
(i) Any software modifications that the TGRA finds will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's overall compliance with this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter, after receiving a new testing laboratory report that the modifications are compliant with the standards established by § 547.4(a), § 547.8(b), § 547.14, and any other standards adopted by the TGRA;
(ii) Any hardware modifications that the TGRA finds will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's overall compliance with this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter; and
(iii) Any other modification to the software of a grandfathered Class II gaming system that the TGRA finds will not detract from, compromise or prejudice:
(A) The proper functioning, security, or integrity of the Class II gaming system, and
(B) The gaming system's overall compliance with the requirements of this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter.
(iv) No such modification may be implemented without the approval of the TGRA. The TGRA must maintain a record of the modification so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play and must make the record available to the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).
(6) The player interface must exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) and any other information required by the TGRA.
(7) If a grandfathered Class II gaming system is approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, it ceases to be a grandfathered system and the restrictions of paragraph (a) and (b) of this section no longer apply.
(c)
(1) The Class II gaming system, cashless system, voucher system, or modification thereto has been submitted to a testing laboratory;
(2) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:
(i) This part;
(ii) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(iii) The TGRA;
(3) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section;
(4) The testing laboratory's written report confirms that the operation of a player interface prototype has been certified that it will not be compromised or affected by electrostatic discharge, liquid spills, electromagnetic interference, radio frequency interference, or any other tests required by the TGRA;
(5) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the Class II gaming system, cashless system, or voucher system conforms to the standards established by:
(i) This part;
(ii) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(iii) The TGRA.
(6) The TGRA retains a copy of the testing laboratory's report required by paragraph (c) of this section for as long as the Class II gaming system, cashless system, voucher system, or modification thereto that is the subject of the report remains available to the public for play in its tribal gaming operation.
(d)
(i) Necessary to correct a problem affecting the fairness, security, or integrity of a game or accounting system or any cashless system, or voucher system; or
(ii) Unrelated to game play, an accounting system, a cashless system, or a voucher system.
(2) If a TGRA authorizes modified software or hardware to be made available for play or use without prior testing laboratory review, the TGRA must thereafter require the hardware or software manufacturer to:
(i) Immediately advise other users of the same hardware or software of the importance and availability of the update;
(ii) Immediately submit the new or modified hardware or software to a testing laboratory for testing and verification of compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(iii) Immediately provide the TGRA with a software signature verification tool meeting the requirements of § 547.8(f) for any new or modified software.
(3) If a TGRA authorizes a software or hardware modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play and must make the record available to the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).
(e)
(1) The tribal government determines that the organization sponsoring the gaming operation is a charitable organization;
(2) All proceeds of the charitable gaming operation are for the benefit of the charitable organization;
(3) The TGRA permits the charitable organization to be exempt from this part;
(4) The charitable gaming operation is operated wholly by the charitable organization's employees or volunteers; and
(5) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable gaming operation does not exceed $1,000,000.
(f)
(i) It demonstrates its integrity, independence and financial stability to the TGRA.
(ii) It demonstrates its technical skill and capability to the TGRA.
(iii) If the testing laboratory is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, a tribe, it must be independent from the manufacturer and gaming operator for whom it is providing the testing, evaluating, and reporting functions required by this section.
(iv) The TGRA:
(A) Makes a suitability determination of the testing laboratory based upon standards no less stringent than those set out in § 533.6(b)(1)(ii) through (v) of this chapter and based upon no less information than that required by § 537.1 of this chapter, or
(B) Accepts, in its discretion, a determination of suitability for the testing laboratory made by any other gaming regulatory authority in the United States.
(v) After reviewing the suitability determination and the information provided by the testing laboratory, the TGRA determines that the testing laboratory is qualified to test and evaluate Class II gaming systems.
(2) The TGRA must:
(i) Maintain a record of all determinations made pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section for a minimum of three years and must make the records available to the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).
(ii) Place the testing laboratory under a continuing obligation to notify it of any adverse regulatory action in any jurisdiction where the testing laboratory conducts business.
(iii) Require the testing laboratory to provide notice of any material changes to the information provided to the TGRA.
(a)
(1) Enroll and unenroll Class II gaming system components;
(2) Enable and disable specific Class II gaming system components.
(b)
(1) Ensure that only enrolled and enabled Class II gaming system components participate in gaming; and
(2) Ensure that the default condition for components must be unenrolled and disabled.
(a)
(2) Switches or jumpers on all circuit boards that have the potential to affect the outcome or integrity of any game, progressive award, financial instrument, cashless transaction, voucher transaction, or accounting records must be capable of being sealed.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Display information to a player; and
(2) Allow the player to interact with the Class II gaming system.
(e)
(1) Must be constructed so that physical tampering leaves evidence of such tampering; and
(2) Must provide a method to enable the Class II gaming system to interpret and act upon valid or invalid input or error condition.
(f)
(g)
(i) Be located within a secure and locked area, cabinet, or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components;
(ii) Be able to detect the entry of valid or invalid financial instruments and to provide a method to enable the Class II gaming system to interpret and act upon valid or invalid input or error condition; and
(iii) Be constructed to permit communication with the Class II gaming system of the accounting information required by § 547.9(a) and by applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.
(2) Prior to completion of a valid financial instrument transaction by the Class II gaming system, no monetary amount related to that instrument may be available for play. For example, credits may not be available for play until a financial instrument inserted into an acceptor is secured in the storage component.
(3) The monetary amount related to all valid financial instrument transactions by the Class II gaming system must be recorded as required by § 547.9(a) and the applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.
(h)
(i) Be located within a secure, locked and tamper-evident area or in a locked cabinet or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components;
(ii) Provide a method to enable the Class II gaming system to interpret and act upon valid or invalid input or error condition; and
(iii) Be constructed to permit communication with the Class II gaming system of the accounting information required by § 547.9(a) and by applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.
(2) The monetary amount related to all valid financial instrument transactions by the Class II gaming system must be recorded as required by § 547.9(a), the applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter, and any TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(a)
(i) The purchase or wager amount;
(ii) Game results; and
(iii) Any player credit balance.
(2) Between plays of any game and until the start of the next play, or until the player selects a new game option such as purchase or wager amount or card selection, whichever is earlier, if not otherwise provided to the player, the player interface must display:
(i) The total purchase or wager amount and all prizes and total credits won for the last game played;
(ii) The final results for the last game played; and
(iii) Any default purchase or wager amount for the next play.
(b)
(2) The Class II gaming system may not alter or allow to be altered the card permutations used for play of a Class II game unless specifically chosen by the player prior to commitment to participate in the game. No duplicate cards may be sold for any common draw.
(3) No game play may commence, and no financial instrument or credit may be accepted on the affected player interface, in the presence of any fault condition that affects the outcome of the game, or while in test, audit, or lock-up mode.
(4) Each player must initiate his or her participation in the play of a game.
(c)
(i) Provide all accounting functions required by § 547.9, by applicable provisions of any Commission regulations governing minimum internal control standards, and by any internal controls adopted by the tribe or TGRA;
(ii) Display player interface identification; and
(iii) Display software version or game identification.
(2) Audit mode must be accessible by a secure method such as an agent PIN, key, or other auditable access control.
(3) Accounting function data must be accessible by an agent at any time, except during a payout, during a handpay, or during play.
(4) The Class II gaming system must disable financial instrument acceptance on the affected player interface while in audit mode, except during financial instrument acceptance testing.
(d)
(1) Be retrievable at all times, other than when the recall component is involved in the play of a game, upon the operation of an external key-switch, entry of an audit card, or a similar method;
(2) Display the results of recalled games as originally displayed or in text representation so as to enable the TGRA or operator to clearly identify the sequences and results that occurred;
(3) Allow the Class II gaming system component providing game recall, upon return to normal game play mode, to restore any affected display to the positions, forms and values displayed before access to the game recall information; and
(4) Provide the following information for the current and previous four games played and must display:
(i) Play start time, end time, and date;
(ii) The total number of credits at the start of play;
(iii) The purchase or wager amount;
(iv) The total number of credits at the end of play;
(v) The total number of credits won as a result of the game recalled, and the value in dollars and cents for progressive prizes, if different;
(vi) For bingo games and games similar to bingo, also display:
(A) The card(s) used by the player;
(B) The identifier of the bingo game played;
(C) The numbers or other designations drawn, in the order that they were drawn;
(D) The numbers or other designations and prize patterns covered on each card;
(E) All prizes won by the player, including winning patterns, if any; and
(F) The unique identifier of the card on which prizes were won;
(vii) For pull-tab games only, also display:
(A) The result(s) of each pull-tab, displayed in the same pattern as on the tangible pull-tab;
(B) All prizes won by the player;
(C) The unique identifier of each pull tab; and
(D) Any other information necessary to fully reconstruct the current and four previous plays.
(e)
(1) Display the information specified in § 547.11(b)(5)(ii) through (vi) for the last five vouchers or coupons printed and the last five vouchers or coupons accepted; and
(2) Display a complete transaction history for the last five cashless transactions made and the last five cashless transactions accepted.
(f)
(g)
(1) Clearly indicate when that component is in the test, diagnostic, or demonstration mode;
(2) Not alter financial data on that component other than temporary data;
(3) Only be available after entering a specific mode;
(4) Disable credit acceptance and payment unless credit acceptance or payment is being tested; and
(5) Terminate all mode-specific functions upon exiting a mode.
(h)
(1) Provide a display of available games;
(2) Provide the means of selecting among them;
(3) Display the full amount of the player's credit balance;
(4) Identify the game selected or being played; and
(5) Not force the play of a game after its selection.
(i)
(1) Is able to return to a known state;
(2) Must check for any fault condition;
(3) Must verify the integrity of data stored in critical memory;
(4) Must return the purchase or wager amount to the player in accordance with the rules of the game; and
(5) Must detect any change or corruption in the Class II gaming system software.
(j)
(1) Modification of progressive parameters must be conducted in a secure manner approved by the TGRA. Such parameters may include:
(i) Increment value;
(ii) Secondary pool increment(s);
(iii) Reset amount(s);
(iv) Maximum value(s); and
(v) Identity of participating player interfaces.
(2) The Class II gaming system component or other progressive controller must provide a means of creating a progressive balancing report for each progressive link it controls. At a minimum, that report must provide balancing of the changes of the progressive amount, including progressive prizes won, for all participating player interfaces versus current progressive amount(s), plus progressive prizes. In addition, the report must account for, and not be made inaccurate by, unusual events such as:
(i) Class II gaming system critical memory clears;
(ii) Modification, alteration, or deletion of progressive prizes;
(iii) Offline equipment; or
(iv) Multiple site progressive prizes.
(k)
(i) Accounting data;
(ii) Current credits;
(iii) Configuration data;
(iv) Last game play recall information required by paragraph (d) of this section;
(v) Game play recall information for the current game play, if incomplete;
(vi) Software state (the last normal state software was in before interruption);
(vii) RNG seed(s), if necessary for maintaining integrity;
(viii) Encryption keys, if necessary for maintaining integrity;
(ix) Progressive prize parameters and current values;
(x) The five most recent financial instruments accepted by type, excluding coins and tokens;
(xi) The five most recent financial instruments dispensed by type, excluding coins and tokens; and
(xii) The five most recent cashless transactions paid and the five most recent cashless transactions accepted.
(2) Critical memory must be maintained using a methodology that enables errors to be identified and acted upon. All accounting and recall functions must be verified as necessary to ensure their ongoing integrity.
(3) The validity of affected data stored in critical memory must be checked after each of the following events:
(i) Every restart;
(ii) Each attendant paid win;
(iii) Each attendant paid progressive win;
(iv) Each sensored door closure; and
(v) Every reconfiguration, download, or change of prize schedule or denomination requiring operator intervention or action.
(l)
(a)
(1) Amount In: The total value of all financial instruments and cashless transactions accepted by the Class II gaming system. Each type of financial instrument accepted by the Class II gaming system must be tracked independently per financial instrument acceptor, and as required by applicable requirements of TGRA regulations that meet or exceed the minimum internal control standards at 25 CFR part 543.
(2) Amount Out: The total value of all financial instruments and cashless transactions paid by the Class II gaming system, plus the total value of attendant pay. Each type of financial instrument paid by the Class II Gaming System must be tracked independently per financial instrument dispenser, and as required by applicable requirements of TGRA regulations that meet or exceed the minimum internal control standards at 25 CFR part 543.
(b)
(1) Accounting data must be stored with at least eight decimal digits.
(2) Credit balances must have sufficient digits to accommodate the design of the game.
(3) Accounting data displayed to the player may be incremented or decremented using visual effects, but the internal storage of this data must be immediately updated in full.
(4) Accounting data must be updated upon the occurrence of the relevant accounting event.
(5) Modifications to accounting data must be recorded, including the identity of the person(s) making the modifications, and be reportable by the Class II gaming system.
(c)
(d)
(i) In audit, configuration, recall and test modes; or
(ii) Temporarily, during entertaining displays of game results.
(2) Progressive prizes may be added to the player's credit balance provided that:
(i) The player credit balance is maintained in dollars and cents;
(ii) The progressive accounting data is incremented in number of credits; or
(iii) The prize in dollars and cents is converted to player credits or transferred to the player's credit balance in a manner that does not mislead the player or cause accounting imbalances.
(3) If the player credit balance displays in credits, but the actual balance includes fractional credits, the Class II gaming system must display the fractional credit when the player credit balance drops below one credit.
(a)
(2) The occurrence of any event identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be recorded.
(3) Upon clearing any event identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Class II gaming system must:
(i) Record that the fault condition has been cleared;
(ii) Ensure the integrity of all related accounting data; and
(iii) In the case of a malfunction, return a player's purchase or wager according to the rules of the game.
(b)
(i) Indicate that the state of a sensored door changes from closed to open or opened to closed;
(ii) Disable all financial instrument acceptance, unless a test mode is entered;
(iii) Disable game play on the affected player interface;
(iv) Disable player inputs on the affected player interface, unless test mode is entered; and
(v) Disable all financial instrument disbursement, unless a test mode is entered.
(2) The Class II gaming system may return the component to a ready to play state when all sensored doors are closed.
(c)
(a)
(2) The Class II gaming system must reject financial instruments deemed invalid.
(b)
(i) Involved in the play of a game;
(ii) In audit mode, recall mode or any test mode;
(iii) Detecting any sensored door open condition;
(iv) Updating the player credit balance or total win accounting data; or
(v) Displaying a fault condition that would prevent cash-out or credit redemption. In this case a fault indication must be displayed.
(2) For cashable credits not on a player interface, the player must be allowed to cash out and/or redeem those credits at any time.
(3) A Class II gaming system must not automatically pay an award subject to mandatory tax reporting or withholding.
(4) Credit redemption by voucher or coupon must conform to the following:
(i) A Class II gaming system may redeem credits by issuing a voucher or coupon when it communicates with a voucher system that validates the voucher or coupon.
(ii) A Class II gaming system that redeems credits by issuing vouchers and coupons must either:
(A) Maintain an electronic record of all information required by paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) through (vi) of this section; or
(B) Generate two identical copies of each voucher or coupon issued, one to be provided to the player and the other to be retained within the electronic player interface for audit purposes.
(5) Valid vouchers and coupons from a voucher system must contain the following:
(i) Tribal gaming operation name and location;
(ii) The identification number of the Class II gaming system component or the player interface number, as applicable;
(iii) Date and time of issuance;
(iv) Alpha and numeric dollar amount;
(v) A sequence number;
(vi) A validation number that:
(A) Is produced by a means specifically designed to prevent repetition of validation numbers; and
(B) Has some form of checkcode or other form of information redundancy to prevent prediction of subsequent validation numbers without knowledge of the checkcode algorithm and parameters;
(vii) For machine-readable vouchers and coupons, a bar code or other form of machine readable representation of the validation number, which must have enough redundancy and error checking to ensure that 99.9% of all misreads are flagged as errors;
(viii) Transaction type or other method of differentiating voucher and coupon types; and
(ix) Expiration period or date.
(6) Transfers from an account may not exceed the balance of that account.
(7) For Class II gaming systems not using dollars and cents accounting and not having odd cents accounting, the Class II gaming system must reject any transfers from voucher systems or cashless systems that are not even multiples of the Class II gaming system denomination.
(8) Voucher systems must include the ability to report redemptions per redemption location or user.
(a)
(2) Downloads must use secure methodologies that will deliver the download data without alteration or modification, in accordance with § 547.15(a).
(3) Downloads conducted during operational periods must be performed in a manner that will not affect game play.
(4) Downloads must not affect the integrity of accounting data.
(5) The Class II gaming system must be capable of providing:
(i) The time and date of the initiation of the download;
(ii) The time and date of the completion of the download;
(iii) The Class II gaming system components to which software was downloaded;
(iv) The version(s) of download package and any software downloaded. Logging of the unique software signature will satisfy this requirement;
(v) The outcome of any software verification following the download (success or failure); and
(vi) The name and identification number, or other unique identifier, of any individual(s) conducting or scheduling a download.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(2) All unused areas of EPROMs must be written with the inverse of the erased state (zero bits (00 hex) for most EPROMs), random data, or repeats of the program data.
(3) Flash memory storage components intended to have the same logical function as ROM, must be write-protected or otherwise protected from unauthorized modification.
(4) The write cycle must be closed or finished for all CD-ROMs such that it is not possible to write any further data to the CD.
(5) Write protected hard disks are permitted if the hardware means of
(c)
(2) Program storage must be structured so there is a verifiable separation of fixed data (such as program, fixed parameters, DLLs) and variable data.
(d)
(1) Manufacturer;
(2) Program identifier;
(3) Program version number(s); and
(4) Location information, if critical (socket position 3 on the printed circuit board).
(a)
(1) Statistical randomness;
(2) Unpredictability; and
(3) Non-repeatability.
(b)
(2) Numbers or other designations produced by an RNG must pass the statistical tests for randomness to a 99% confidence level, which may include:
(i) Chi-square test;
(ii) Runs test (patterns of occurrences must not be recurrent); and
(iii) Serial correlation test potency and degree of serial correlation (outcomes must be independent from the previous game).
(iv) Equi-distribution (frequency) test;
(v) Gap test;
(vi) Poker test;
(vii) Coupon collector's test;
(viii) Permutation test;
(ix) Spectral test; or
(x) Test on subsequences.
(c)
(2) Unpredictability must be ensured by reseeding or by continuously cycling the RNG, and by providing a sufficient number of RNG states for the applications supported.
(3) Re-seeding may be used where the re-seeding input is at least as statistically random as, and independent of, the output of the RNG being re-seeded.
(d)
(1) A source of “true” randomness, such as a hardware random noise generator; or
(2) A combination of timestamps, parameters unique to a Class II gaming system, previous RNG outputs, or other, similar method.
(e)
(2) The use of multiple RNGs is permitted as long as they operate in accordance with this section.
(3) RNG outputs must not be arbitrarily discarded or selected.
(4) Where a sequence of outputs is required, the whole of the sequence in the order generated must be used in accordance with the game rules.
(5) The Class II gaming system must neither adjust the RNG process or game outcomes based on the history of prizes obtained in previous games nor use any reflexive software or secondary decision that affects the results shown to the player or game outcome.
(f)
(1) Be independent and uniform over the range;
(2) Provide numbers scaled to the ranges required by game rules, and notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, may discard numbers that do not map uniformly onto the required range but must use the first number in sequence that does map correctly to the range;
(3) Be capable of producing every possible outcome of a game according to its rules; and
(4) Use an unbiased algorithm. A scaling algorithm is considered to be unbiased if the measured bias is no greater than 1 in 50 million.
(a)
(1) RNG seeds and outcomes;
(2) Encryption keys, where the implementation chosen requires transmission of keys;
(3) PINs;
(4) Passwords;
(5) Financial instrument transactions;
(6) Transfers of funds;
(7) Player tracking information;
(8) Download Packages; and
(9) Any information that affects game outcome.
(b)
(2) Open or unsecured wireless communications are prohibited.
(3) Wireless communications must be secured using a methodology that makes eavesdropping, access, tampering, intrusion or alteration impractical. By way of illustration, such methodologies include encryption, frequency hopping, and code division multiplex access (as in cell phone technology).
(c) Methodologies must be used that will ensure the reliable transfer of data and provide a reasonable ability to detect and act upon any corruption of the data.
(d) Class II gaming systems must record detectable, unauthorized access or intrusion attempts.
(e) Remote communications may only be allowed if authorized by the TGRA. Class II gaming systems must have the ability to enable or disable remote access, and the default state must be set to disabled.
(f) Failure of data communications must not affect the integrity of critical memory.
(g) The Class II gaming system must log the establishment, loss, and re-establishment of data communications between sensitive Class II gaming system components.
(a)
(1) Game name, rules, and options such as the purchase or wager amount stated clearly and unambiguously;
(2) Denomination;
(3) Instructions for play on, and use of, the player interface, including the functions of all buttons; and
(4) A prize schedule or other explanation, sufficient to allow a player to determine the correctness of all prizes awarded, including:
(i) The range and values obtainable for any variable prize;
(ii) Whether the value of a prize depends on the purchase or wager amount; and
(iii) The means of division of any pari-mutuel prizes; but
(iv) For Class II Gaming Systems, the prize schedule or other explanation need not state that subsets of winning patterns are not awarded as additional prizes (for example, five in a row does not also pay three in a row or four in a row), unless there are exceptions, which must be clearly stated.
(b)
(1) “Malfunctions void all prizes and plays” or equivalent; and
(2) “Actual Prizes Determined by Bingo (or other applicable Class II game) Play. Other Displays for Entertainment Only” or equivalent.
(a)
(2) For each enumerated standard for which the TGRA approves an alternate standard, it must submit to the Chair within 30 days a detailed report, which must include the following:
(i) An explanation of how the alternate standard achieves a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace; and
(ii) The alternate standard as approved and the record on which the approval is based.
(3) In the event that the TGRA or the tribe's government chooses to submit an alternate standard request directly to the Chair for joint government to government review, the TGRA or tribal government may do so without the approval requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b)
(2) If the Chair approves the alternate standard, the Tribe may continue to use it as authorized by the TGRA.
(3) If the Chair objects to the alternate standard, the operation may no longer use the alternate standard and must follow the relevant technical standard set forth in this part.
(4) Any objection by the Chair must be in written form with an explanation why the alternate standard as approved by the TGRA does not provide a level of security or integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace.
(5) If the Chair fails to approve or object in writing within 60 days after the date of receipt of a complete submission, the alternate standard is considered approved by the Chair. The Chair may, upon notification to the TGRA, extend this deadline an additional 60 days.
(c)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.
Final rule.
This document announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) decision to modify the Hawaii State Plan's “final approval” determination under Section 18(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) and to transition to “initial approval” status. OSHA is reinstating concurrent federal enforcement authority over occupational safety and health issues in the private sector, which have been solely covered by the Hawaii State Plan since 1984.
Effective September 21, 2012.
Hawaii administers an OSHA-approved state plan to develop and enforce occupational safety and health standards for public and private sector employers, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. The Hawaii State Plan received initial federal OSHA plan approval on December 28, 1973 (39 FR 1010) and the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Division (HIOSH) of the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations is designated as the state agency responsible for administering the state plan. Pursuant to Section 18(e) of the Act, OSHA granted Hawaii “final approval” effective April 30, 1984 (49 FR 19182). Final approval under Section 18(e) requires, among other things, a finding by the Assistant Secretary that the plan, in actual operation, provides worker protection “at least as effective as” that provided by federal OSHA. A final approval determination results in the relinquishment of federal concurrent enforcement authority in the state with respect to occupational safety and health issues covered by the plan. 29 U.S.C. 667(e).
During the past three years, the Hawaii State Plan has faced major budgetary and staffing restraints that have significantly affected its program. Impacts on the state plan are clearly reflected throughout OSHA's recent monitoring reports. Joint efforts were made by federal OSHA and HIOSH to
Pursuant to the procedures set forth at 29 CFR 1902.47
Pursuant to the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 1902.47
The Assistant Secretary's decision is based upon the facts determined by OSHA in monitoring the Hawaii State Plan and HIOSH's request for enforcement assistance, and was reached after opportunity for public comment. Three organizations and one individual filed a comment with the agency within the public comment period. Comments were received from the Hawaii Business League, Veterans of Safety Hawaii Chapter, Island Insurance Company, Ltd., and Dr. Walter Chun. OSHA has reviewed and considered the comments, and the following discussion addresses the comments and OSHA's responses.
The Hawaii Business League stated a strong preference for Hawaii to maintain a state plan and voiced favorable support for a transition to initial approval as means to progress towards restoration of Hawaii's 18(e) final approval status. Island Insurance Company, Ltd. and Dr. Walter Chun raised concerns about how HIOSH allows for greater penalty reductions than federal OSHA, and about whether fines/penalties will be part of the criteria for the Hawaii State Plan to regain its 18(e) final approval status. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.42(a), “[i]n making an affirmative 18(e) determination, the Assistant Secretary determines that a State has applied the provisions of its plan, or any modification thereof, in accordance with the criteria of Section 18(c) of the Act and that the State has applied the provisions of this part in a manner which renders the actual operations of the state program ‘at least as effective as' operations under the Federal program.” One of the criteria in Section 18(c) of the Act is the development and enforcement of safety and health standards, and penalties are an essential component of effective safety and health enforcement in the workplace. Therefore, Hawaii's overall penalty policy would be evaluated in the course of regaining 18(e) final approval status.
In response to Dr. Walter Chun's further questions, the addendum referenced in the Operational Status Agreement (OSA) will not be available for public comment. The addendum is an internal working document between the Director of the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations and OSHA's Regional Administrator for Region IX, outlining the plan of action and milestones for the Hawaii State Plan to work towards regaining 18(e) final approval status. During the period of concurrent state and federal authority, both Hawaii and federal OSHA have authority to conduct inspections and issue citations. However, the terms of the OSA will delineate areas of coverage to ensure employers are not burdened with duplicative enforcement efforts. Federal OSHA compliance officers will be conducting inspections, in accordance with the terms of the OSA, and issuing citations and penalties under federal standards. OSHA is not aware that any changes in the state's rules or regulations are necessary to accommodate concurrent jurisdiction.
Dr. Walter Chun and Veterans of Safety Hawaii Chapter both requested an informal public hearing, to address the public's questions and comments. The public comments and questions submitted on the docket have all been addressed in this notice and there are no substantial issues raised that necessitate a public hearing.
The Assistant Secretary's decision to modify the Hawaii State Plan's status from final to initial approval would authorize OSHA to carry on an enforcement program to supplement that of HIOSH, including independent federal or joint state and federal inspections resulting in issuance of appropriate federal citations. However, modifying Hawaii's final approval status would not affect Hawaii's basic plan approval and would not affect Hawaii's legal authority to enforce state occupational safety and health standards in the state's workplaces. This modification would leave Hawaii's federally-approved state plan completely in place, and would simply reinstate federal OSHA's authority to supplement state enforcement during this difficult period.
Federal OSHA inspections or joint state and federal OSHA inspections may result in the issuance of appropriate federal citations and penalties. Federal OSHA compliance officers may issue citations effective immediately. Contested federal citations and penalties will be reviewed by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). Federal OSHA will continue to exercise federal authority over safety and health issues excluded from coverage under the state plan; monitoring inspections including accompanied visits; and other federal authority not affected by the 1984 final approval decision.
Federal OSHA will exercise its enforcement authority according to the terms of the 2012 OSA between OSHA and HIOSH, which specifies the respective areas of federal and state authority. OSHA will continue to exercise federal enforcement of federal requirements for safety and health in private sector maritime activities, 29 CFR part 1915 and parts 1917-1920, as well as provisions of the general industry and construction standards appropriate to hazards found in those employments. Federal jurisdiction also remains in effect over: Federal government employers and workers, and contractors or subcontractors on any federal establishment where the land is determined to be exclusive federal jurisdiction; private sector employers within the secured borders of
The OSA further provides that federal enforcement authority under Section 18 of the Act may be exercised with regard to federal occupational safety and health requirements over agriculture and general industries, excluding transportation and warehousing. Potential violations where the employer is in compliance with federal regulations, but not with more stringent HIOSH regulations, shall be referred to HIOSH.
HIOSH will retain enforcement authority in any case commenced before September 21, 2012. Additionally, HIOSH will exercise inspection and enforcement authority over: The construction industry, transportation and warehousing; state and local government as an employer; and referrals from federal OSHA to HIOSH.
The OSA also provides that HIOSH and federal OSHA will retain concurrent enforcement authority over employment discrimination complaints, pursuant to Section 11(c) of the Act. Employees may continue to file occupational safety and health whistleblower complaints with federal OSHA, the state, or both. However, the OSA provides that, in accordance with OSHA's long-standing policy, OSHA will generally continue to refer all employment discrimination complaints that are federally-filed by private-sector and non-federal public sector employees to HIOSH for investigation, a determination on the merits, and the pursuit of a remedy, if appropriate. The OSA explains that federal OSHA will investigate any allegations of retaliation covered under the OSHA-administered whistleblower laws other than Section 11(c).
If there arises any case or circumstance in which authority is not clearly defined in the OSA, OSHA and HIOSH will resolve the issue. In the meantime, (e.g., where quick response is required such as a fatality, catastrophe or significant event), OSHA shall respond to the situation.
Federal OSHA may conduct monitoring visits under Section 18(f) of the OSH Act. The OSA also provides that OSHA may also accompany HIOSH on enforcement activities for purposes of technical assistance and training. And HIOSH may accompany federal OSHA on enforcement activities for training purposes. The OSA is subject to revision or termination by mutual agreement of the parties, by either party upon 30 days written notice, or when the results of evaluation or monitoring reveal that state operations are at least as effective as the federal program and responsibilities may be returned to the state. Finally, the OSA includes an Addendum with goals and milestones for returning all enforcement responsibilities to Hawaii.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the States and establishes specific review procedures the Federal government must follow as it carries out policies which affect State or local governments. OSHA has consulted extensively with Hawaii about this modification of its approval status. Although OSHA has determined that the requirements and consultation procedures provided in Executive Order 13132 are not applicable to approval decisions under the Act, which have no effect outside the particular State, OSHA has reviewed this final rule, and believes it is consistent with the principles and criteria set forth in the Executive Order.
OSHA finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective immediately upon publication in the
Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety and health.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 1905.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 29 CFR part 1952 is amended as set forth below.
Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part 1902; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).
(a) With Hawaii's agreement and as a result of the Assistant Secretary's reinstatement of Hawaii's initial approval status, Hawaii and Federal OSHA will begin exercising concurrent jurisdiction under section 18(e) of the Act on September 21, 2012.
(b) To provide a workable division of enforcement responsibilities, Hawaii and Federal OSHA have entered into an operational status agreement. Notice of this agreement was provided in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the running of the Portland Marathon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the down or closed position during the marathon.
This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. October 7, 2012 through 3 p.m. October 7, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0862 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Multnomah County has requested that the Broadway Bascule Bridge remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants of the Portland Marathon. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 11.7 and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period. Under normal conditions this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897 which allows for the bridge to remain closed between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and also requires advance notification when a bridge opening is needed. This deviation period is from 7:30 a.m. October 7, 2012 through 3 p.m. October 7, 2012. The deviation allows the bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 7:30 a.m. October 7, 2012 through 3 p.m. October 7, 2012. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The draw span will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating regulation that governs the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) Drawbridge across Old River, mile 10.4, at Orwood, CA. The deviation is to allow the bridge owner to perform essential mechanical repairs on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. October 22, 2012 to 4 p.m. on October 26, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of the docket USCG-2012-0808 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
BNSF has requested a temporary change to the operation of the BNSF Railroad Drawbridge, mile 10.4, over Old River, at Orwood, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 11.2 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens promptly and fully when a request to open is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
This temporary deviation has been coordinated with commercial operators and various marinas. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. The BNSF drawbridge across Middle River provides alternative access for vessel transits.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Forest Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
The Forest Service is making purely technical, nonsubstantive changes to Forest Service regulations. These regulations authorize issuance of an order prohibiting operation or use of any internal or external combustion engine without a spark arresting device that is properly installed, maintained, and in effective working order in accordance with the standards. The reference to the standard is obsolete and needs to be updated. The standard does not apply and needs to be removed.
The rule is effective September 21, 2012.
Kenneth Pearson, Assistant Director for Enforcement and Liaison, at 703-605-4527 or via email at
The standard listed in paragraph (j)(1) is “Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Standard 5100-1a.” However, the current U.S. Forest Service Standard is 5100-1d. Since this standard is continually being updated, the standard in paragraph (j)(1) is being revised to read, “U.S. Forest Service Standard 5100-1.”
The standard listed in paragraph (j)(2) is “Appropriate Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice J335(b) and J350(a).” However, SAE recommended practices cover test procedures for, rather than performance of, spark arresters. U.S. Forest Service Standard 5100-1 covers performance of spark arresters. Accordingly, paragraph (j)(2) is being removed, and paragraph (j)(1) is being designated as paragraph (j).
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts certain rulemaking from its public notice and comment requirements, including rulemaking involving “public property” (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)), such as federal lands managed by the Forest Service. Furthermore, the APA allows agencies to promulgate rules without public notice and comment when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).
In 1971, Secretary of Agriculture Hardin announced a voluntary waiver of the public property exemption from public notice and comment rulemaking under the APA (July 24, 1971; 36 FR 13804). Thus, agencies in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) generally provide public notice and comment in promulgating rules. However, the Hardin policy permits USDA agencies to promulgate final rules without public notice and comment when the agencies find for good cause that notice and comment procedures would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The courts have recognized this good cause exception to the Hardin policy and have indicated that since the public notice and comment requirement was adopted voluntarily, the Secretary should be afforded “more latitude” in making a good cause determination. See
The Department finds that good cause exists to exempt this rulemaking from public notice and comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This rulemaking merely updates a reference and removes an inapplicable reference. Public notice and comment are unnecessary for these minor, purely technical changes.
This final rule revises law enforcement regulations governing certain activities on National Forest System lands. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. The Department has determined that this final rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 on regulatory planning and review. It has been determined that this final rule is not significant. This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor will it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. This final rule will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will this final rule raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this final rule will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
This final rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602
The Department has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism. The Department has determined that this final rule conforms to the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Department has determined that no further determination of federalism implications is necessary at this time.
This final rule does not have tribal implications per E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required in connection with the final rule.
The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630 and has determined that this final rule will not pose the risk of a taking of private property.
The Department has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this final rule, (1) All State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this final rule or that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this final rule; and (3) it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.
The Department has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply. The Department has determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O.
This final rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Law enforcement, National forests.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service is amending subpart B of part 261 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 472, 551, 620(f), 1133(c), (d)(1), 1246(i).
(j) Operating or using any internal or external combustion engine without a spark arresting device that is properly installed, maintained, and in effective working order in accordance with U.S. Forest Service Standard 5100-1.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of flumioxazin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective September 21, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 20, 2012, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593, is available either electronically through
Bethany Benbow, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-8072; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and use of the OECD tolerance calculation procedures, EPA has determined that a single tolerance to cover all of the commodities within each of the crop subgroups is appropriate versus individual tolerances for each of the commodities within the crop subgroups. In addition, EPA has determined that several of the proposed tolerances for wheat commodities, including wheat bran, flour, germ, middlings, and shorts, are not required. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flumioxazin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flumioxazin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. A summary of the toxicological findings are as follows:
Flumioxazin has mild or low acute toxicity when administered orally, dermally, or by inhalation. It is not an eye or skin irritant, or a dermal sensitizer. In general, the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies demonstrated that toxic effects associated with flumioxazin include anemia as well as effects on the liver and the cardiovascular system. Developmental effects were observed in developmental rat studies but not in developmental rabbit studies. Hematologic (hematopoietic) effects of anemia were noted in rats, consisting of alterations in hemoglobin parameters. Increased renal toxicity in male rats was also reported following chronic exposure. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the recently submitted guideline studies. Increased quantitative susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental toxicity studies. Fetal effects were observed in the absence of maternal toxicity. In addition, both increased qualitative and quantitative susceptibility were observed in the rat reproduction study. Severe fetal effects were observed at lower doses than milder parental effects. In most of the available mutagenicity studies, flumioxazin was negative for mutagenicity; however, aberrations were seen in a chromosomal aberration assay (CHO cells). Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats, flumioxazin is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flumioxazin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors (U/SF) are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flumioxazin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for flumioxazin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed residues are present in all commodities at the tolerance level and that 100% of commodities with tolerances are treated with flumioxazin. In addition, EPA used default concentration factors to estimate residues of flumioxazin in processed commodities. Acute dietary exposure was only estimated for females 13-49 years old based on cardiovascular effects in fetuses observed in the oral developmental and supplemental pre-natal rat studies. An endpoint of concern was not established for acute dietary assessment of the general population.
ii.
iii.
2.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations, based on the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for flumioxazin and its major degradates (482-HA and APF) under the use as an aquatic herbicide, were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 400 parts per billion (ppb) was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 142 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for flumioxazin is largely complete with the exception of an inhalation developmental study, which was recently determined necessary, in order to better assess route-specific inhalation risks. In the absence of this study, a 10x FQPA safety factor to account for database uncertainty is needed to protect the safety of infants and children to assess risks for all inhalation exposure scenarios. The toxicity profile can be characterized for all effects, including potential developmental and reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity with the current database.
ii. There is no indication that flumioxazin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although increased susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental and reproductive studies, EPA's concern for these effects is low, and there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity because: The developmental toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs are well characterized after oral and dermal exposure; the offspring toxicity NOAEL and LOAEL are well characterized in the reproduction study and; the Points of Departure (POD) for assessing risk to developing fetuses, infants, and children have been selected either from the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies from the chronic study which established a lower POD for chronic effects than the studies in pre- and postnatal animals. Thus, the regulatory endpoints for flumioxazin are protective of the increased susceptibility seen in the developmental and reproduction studies, and there are no residual concerns for these effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. Because the acute and chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on several conservative assumptions (100% of crops treated with residues present at tolerance levels, default processing factors and screening level drinking water estimates), EPA is confident that the dietary exposure assessments do not underestimate risk to the general U.S. population and various population subgroups. Similarly, EPA does not believe that the non-dietary residential exposures are underestimated because they are based on the conservative assumptions of EPA's Draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments (December 1997), and updates contained in the Science Advisory Council Policy 12 (February 2001) as well as the uses specified in the proposed labels.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Different methodologies were used for the presentation of short-term aggregate risk for adults and children. An aggregate risk estimate (ARI) approach was required to estimate short-term adult aggregate risk because there are different LOCs for adult dermal and inhalation exposures, 100 and 1,000, respectively. For short-term child aggregate risk, the combined MOE approach was used because the endpoint of concern (decreased pup weight) and the LOC are the same. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate ARI of 1.15 for adults and aggregate MOE of 150 for children. Because EPA's LOC for flumioxazin is an ARI of 1 or below and a MOE of 100 or below, these aggregate risk estimates are not of concern.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method, Valent Method RM30-A-1) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. There are no MRLs established by Codex, Canada, or Mexico for any of the proposed commodities in the current registration actions.
EPA has revised the requested tolerances by adjusting the tolerance values, substituting crop group tolerances for individual tolerances, and dropping unnecessary tolerances. The tolerance levels were revised based on analysis of the field trial data using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures. EPA believes they differ from the petitioner's proposed tolerances for dried pea, rapeseed subgroup 20A, and wheat grain and straw due to the petitioner having possibly used the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NAFTA) tolerance calculation procedures as opposed to the OECD procedure. In addition, EPA is setting single tolerances for the crop subgroups (6C, 20A and 20B) versus individual tolerances for each commodity within the subgroups since maximum residues of the commodities within the crop subgroups differ by less than 5X. The proposed tolerances for wheat commodities (bran, flour, germ, middlings, and shorts) are also not necessary since they are covered by the tolerance being set for wheat grain.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2 H -1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1 H -isoindole-1,3(2 H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities as set forth in the regulatory text. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only flumioxazin.
This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The amendments read as follows:
(a) * * *
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Final rule.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (the Committee) administers the AbilityOne® Program pursuant to the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act. The Committee is substituting the term “disabled” for “handicapped” in a term defined in its regulation. Additionally, the Committee has deliberated and unanimously voted to approve the use of “severely” disabled and “significantly” disabled as interchangeable or synonymous terms when referring to people who are severely disabled within the AbilityOne Program. The Committee's approval to use “severely” and significantly” as interchangeable or synonymous terms within the AbilityOne Program specifically does not make any change to the definition of “severely disabled individual” in the JWOD Act or expand the population of individuals served within the AbilityOne Program.
The Committee office is located at 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259.
Dennis Lockard, General Counsel, by telephone (703) 603-7740, or by facsimile at (703) 603-0030, or by mail at the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) administers the AbilityOne® Program pursuant to the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act (41 U.S.C. 8501
Additionally, the Committee is aware that the term “severely disabled” is no longer the description of choice of all disability advocates and terms such as “significantly disabled” have gained acceptance within the disability communities. The Committee is also cognizant that the term “individual with a significant disability” (instead of
The Committee has issued a final rule because this rule does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the AbilityOne Program and does not have a significant cost or administrative impact on others not associated with the AbilityOne Program. Therefore, public comment is not required. This interpretive rule is action by the Committee to ensure that appropriate terminology is used within the AbilityOne Program to describe a significant portion of the people who are served under this program.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs, benefits and burdens of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effective, distributive impacts, and equity). This is not a significant
Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Committee finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) that the statute does not apply to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. This final rule simply substitutes a word in a term defined in the regulation and authorizes the use of specific interchangeable or synonymous terms when describing individuals who are eligible to participate in the AbilityOne Program. Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), this rule of agency organization, procedure and practice is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. The Committee also finds that the 30-day delay in effectiveness, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), is inapplicable because this rule is not a substantive rule.
The Committee has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled amends 41 CFR Part 51-1 as set forth below:
56 FR 48976, Sept. 26, 1991, unless otherwise noted.
The Executive Director of the Committee has approved the publication of this notice and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Publication of 2010 final theft data.
This document publishes the final data on thefts of model year (MY) 2010 passenger motor vehicles that occurred in calendar year (CY) 2010. The final 2010 theft data indicated a decrease in the vehicle theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2010. The final theft rate for MY 2010 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2010 is 1.17 thefts per thousand vehicles, a decrease of 12.03 percent from the rate of 1.33 thefts per thousand in 2009. Publication of these data fulfills NHTSA's statutory obligation to periodically obtain accurate and timely theft data and publish the information for review and comment.
Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
NHTSA administers a program for reducing motor vehicle theft. The central feature of this program is the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR part 541. The standard specifies performance requirements for inscribing and affixing vehicle identification numbers (VINs) onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts of high-theft lines of passenger motor vehicles.
The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely theft data and publish the data for review and comment. To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data annually beginning with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill the § 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document reports the final theft data for CY 2010, the most recent calendar year for which data are available.
In calculating the 2010 theft rates, NHTSA followed the same procedures it used in calculating the MY 2009 theft rates. (For 2009 theft data calculations, see 76 FR 65610, October 24, 2011). As in all previous reports, NHTSA's data were based on information provided to NHTSA by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a government system that receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies and other law enforcement authorities throughout the United States. The NCIC data also include reported thefts of self-insured and uninsured vehicles, not all of which are reported to other data sources.
The 2010 theft rate for each vehicle line was calculated by dividing the number of reported thefts of MY 2010 vehicles of that line stolen during calendar year 2010 by the total number of vehicles in that line manufactured for MY 2010, as reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The final 2010 theft data show a decrease in the vehicle theft rate when compared to the theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2009. The final theft rate for MY 2010 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2010 decreased to 1.17
For MY 2010 vehicles, out of a total of 225 vehicle lines, three lines had a theft rate higher than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the established median theft rate for MYs 1990/1991. (See 59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994). Of the three vehicle lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826, three are passenger car lines, none are multipurpose passenger vehicle lines, and none are light-duty truck lines.
NHTSA's data show that the MY 2010 theft rate reduction is consistent with the general decreasing trend of theft rates over the past 17 years as indicated by Figure 1. The agency believes that the theft rate reduction is the result of several factors including the increased use of standard antitheft devices (i.e., immobilizers) and vehicle parts marking as well as the effectiveness of combined measures used by Federal agencies, law enforcement, vehicle manufacturers and the insurance industry to help combat vehicle theft.
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, NHTSA published the preliminary theft rates for CY 2010 passenger motor vehicles in the
The following list represents NHTSA's final calculation of theft rates for all 2010 passenger motor vehicle lines. This list is intended to inform the public of calendar year 2010 motor vehicle thefts of model year 2010 vehicles and does not have any effect on the obligations of regulated parties under 49 U.S.C. chapter 331, Theft Prevention.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the C season allowance of the 2012 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 620 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 18, 2012, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 2012.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The C season allowance of the 2012 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 7,282 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby decreases the C season pollock allowance by 220 mt to reflect the total amount of pollock TAC that has been caught prior to the C season in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 7,062 mt (7,282 mt minus 220 mt).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the C season allowance of the 2012 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 7,012 mt and is setting aside the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for the Unincorporated Areas of Hoke County, North Carolina.
This withdrawal is effective on September 21, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1171, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
On January 20, 2011, FEMA published a proposed rulemaking at 76 FR 3590, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Hoke County, North Carolina. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking and intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations in the
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for the Unincorporated Areas of Highlands County, Florida.
This withdrawal is effective September 21, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1204, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
On July 22, 2011, FEMA published a proposed rulemaking at 76 FR 43968, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in the Unincorporated Areas of Highlands County, Florida. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking and intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations in the
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule, request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP), which was developed and adopted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and submitted to NMFS for approval. This action proposes broadening the scope of individuals and entities approved to complete vessel fish hold capacity certifications for vessels issued Tier 1 and 2 limited access Atlantic mackerel permits.
Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on October 22, 2012.
Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including the Framework Document, are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The Framework Document is also accessible via the Internet at
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0103, by any one of the following methods:
•
• Mail to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Dr. Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Framework Adjustment 5.”
•
Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-675-2179, fax 978-281-9135.
Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP (76 FR 68642, November 7, 2011) implemented a three tiered mackerel limited access program in which all qualifiers were required to have possessed a valid permit on March 21, 2007. A vessel must have landed at least 400,000 lb (181.44 mt) in any one year 1997-2005 to qualify for a Tier 1 permit; at least 100,000 lb (45.36 mt) in any one year March 1, 1994-December 31, 2005, to qualify for a Tier 2 permit; or at least 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) in any one year March 1, 1994-December 31, 2005, to qualify for a Tier 3 permit. Trip limits for each tier are established annually through the specification process. The trip limits approved for 2012 are unlimited for Tier 1; 135,000 lb (61.23 mt) for Tier 2; and 100,000 lb (45.36 mt) for Tier 3.
The tiered limited access program went into effect on March 1, 2012, and permit applications are being accepted through February 28, 2013. Vessel owners whose vessels are issued Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits (the tiers with the highest access) are required to obtain a certification of the capacity of the vessel's fish hold(s). The final rule implementing Amendment 11 provided that a fish hold capacity certification must be made by an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors, or by an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors. Vessel owners who have received a certification of their vessel's fish hold capacity by the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures also meet the fish hold capacity requirement. Vessel owners are required to submit documentation in support of their vessel's certified fish hold capacity to NMFS by December 31, 2012, or their first vessel replacement or upgrade, whichever comes first. The certified fish hold capacity will be considered a new baseline specification to control future vessel upgrades for vessels with Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits. In addition to limiting vessel upgrades to 10 percent above the baseline gross registered tonnage, net tonnage, and length overall and 20 percent above the baseline horsepower, future upgrades to Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits will be limited to 10 percent above the certified baseline fish hold capacity. Council staff and the Council developed the original credentialing requirements through background research, advisory panel meetings, input from several marine surveyors in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, and input during several rounds of public comment on the amendment. Since publication of the final rule for Amendment 11, two marine professionals commented that additional qualified individuals or entities should be approved to complete fish hold capacity certifications. Industry representatives suggested that individuals other than those with the credentials approved in Amendment 11 may be qualified to complete fish hold capacity certifications. To address this concern, the Council adopted Framework 5 on April 12, 2012, and submitted it to NMFS on April 18, 2012, for review and approval.
This action proposes revising the fish hold capacity certification requirement to allow additional individuals or entities beyond those with credentials approved in Amendment 11 to complete fish hold capacity certifications. This framework action would expand the range of individuals and entities that are approved to complete hold capacity certifications and allow them also to be completed by employees or agents of a classification society approved by the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3316(c), Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures, a professionally-licensed and/or registered Marine Engineer, or a Naval Architect with a professional engineer license. NMFS invites the public to comment on whether this expanded list is too broad or there are other individuals who should be added to this list because they have credentials reflecting their competence to make a fish hold certification of which NMFS is currently unaware. In addition, we invite public comment on whether there is a need for additional mechanisms to ensure that individuals and/or entities are qualified to perform fish hold capacity certifications. This list could be expanded in the final rule to include such individuals if NMFS determines it has a reasonable basis upon which to assess an individual's competence to make a fish hold certification. This action also proposes extending the date that vessels are required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by one year. Due to a delay in rulemaking, vessels with mackerel Tier 1 and 2 permits would be required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by December 31, 2013, instead of December 31, 2012.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provision of the
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the reasons described below, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this framework action and none has been prepared.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial fishing sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $4.0 million. Party/charter small businesses are included in NAICS code 487210 and are defined as a firm with gross receipts of up to $7 million. Depending on the year, all 74 of the vessels required to complete hold certifications may qualify as small businesses, or a few may be above the 4.0 million dollar threshold depending on their landings in a given year. However, this action will not negatively impact any fishery participants, regardless of size.
Amendment 11 analyzed the impacts from requiring Tier 1 and 2 mackerel vessels to obtain fish hold capacity measurements from an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors, from an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors, or with certification by the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures. This action proposes to broaden the scope of individuals who are approved to complete the fish hold capacity measurement, but does not have any impact on small entities outside of the scope of those analyzed in Amendment 11. Although vessel owners will have more flexibility for obtaining a fish hold capacity measurement completed by a qualified individual under this action, this action is not expected to result in any change in the cost associated with obtaining the certification.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
2. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(5) (iii)(H)(
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(H)
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Lisa Paska, U.S. Census Bureau, DSD/CPS HQ-7H108B, Washington, DC 20233-8400, (301) 763-3806 (or via the Internet at
The Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the collection of data concerning the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to be conducted in conjunction with the February, March, and April CPS. The Census Bureau has conducted this supplement annually for over 50 years. The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics sponsor this supplement.
In the ASEC, we collect information on work experience, personal income, noncash benefits, health insurance coverage, and migration. The work experience items in the ASEC provide a unique measure of the dynamic nature of the labor force as viewed over a one-year period. These items produce statistics that show movements in and out of the labor force by measuring the number of periods of unemployment experienced by people, the number of different employers worked for during the year, the principal reasons for unemployment, and part-/full-time attachment to the labor force. We can make indirect measurements of discouraged workers and others with a casual attachment to the labor market.
The income data from the ASEC are used by social planners, economists, government officials, and market researchers to gauge the economic well-being of the country as a whole and selected population groups of interest. Government planners and researchers use these data to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of various assistance programs. Market researchers use these data to identify and isolate potential customers. Social planners use these data to forecast economic conditions and to identify special groups that seem to be especially sensitive to economic fluctuations. Economists use ASEC data to determine the effects of various economic forces, such as inflation, recession, recovery, and so on, and their differential effects on various population groups.
A prime statistic of interest is the classification of people in poverty and how this measurement has changed over time for various groups. Researchers evaluate ASEC income data not only to determine poverty levels but also to determine whether government programs are reaching eligible households.
The ASEC also contains questions related to: (1) Medical expenditures; (2) presence and cost of a mortgage on property; (3) child support payments; and (4) amount of child care assistance received. These questions enable analysts and policymakers to obtain better estimates of family and household income, and more precisely gauge poverty status.
The U.S. Census Bureau continues to follow the 1999 mandate from Congress regarding passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or Title XXI. The mandate increased the sample size for the CPS, and specifically the ASEC, to a level achieving estimates that are more reliable for the number of individuals participating in this program at the state level. Since 2000, the ASEC is conducted in February, March, and April, rather than only in March, to achieve the increase in sample size.
The ASEC information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular February, March and April CPS interviewing. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.
Title 13, United States Code, Section 182; and Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1-9.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
Notice of competition announcement.
The Census Bureau announces a prize competition under Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2011, Public Law 111-358 (2011) to create a statistical model to predict the census mail return rate of small area geographic units based on their demographic characteristics. The
Competition began on August 31, 2012, and ends on November 1, 2012.
Please visit
The Census Bureau announces a prize competition under Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2011, Public Law 111-358 (2011) to create a statistical model to predict the census mail return rate of small area geographic units based on their demographic characteristics. Census and survey participation rates vary considerably across geographic areas. For example, 2010 Census mail-form return rates varied across states from a high of 82 percent to a low of 65 percent. The causes of these differences in participation rates are many, but these causes have been found to be related to population and housing characteristics. Subpopulations may differ in their lifestyles and their attitudes toward census participation, and Census planners need to develop appropriate strategies to contact and gain respondent cooperation for timely and efficient data collection.
This competition is intended to develop a statistical model to predict census mail return rates at the Census block group level of geography. The Census Bureau will use this model for planning purposes for the decennial census and for demographic sample surveys. The model-based estimates of predicted mail return will be publicly released in a later version of the Census “planning database” containing updated demographic data.
The Census Bureau announced this competition on their public Web site on August 31, 2012. This notice is intended to formally announce the competition in the
Participants are encouraged to develop and evaluate different statistical approaches to propose the best predictive model for geographic units. The intent is to improve our current predictive analytics.
The challenge will be hosted at
(1)
(a) The 2010 Census mail form return rate will be used as the dependent measure in the model. Units of analysis are census block groups as defined by Census.
(b) The Census Return Rate Predictive Model is to be developed from the variables in our newly updated planning database, which includes selected 2010 Census and ACS 5-year estimates of characteristics that Census experience and the survey literature have found to be associated with enumeration difficulty.
(c) Participants can propose inclusion of additional variables not on the planning database as long as they meet the following criteria:
(i) Administrative data, such as school enrollment or other compiled data, publically available at no cost, and
(ii) The data are not proprietary information, such as commercial telephone and household characteristics lists, which require purchase from a vendor.
Participants are encouraged to notify the Census Bureau of additional data sources to be used before completion of the model to assure compliance with the criteria.
(d) The models will be evaluated as outlined in the
(e) Entry materials will include the model documentation, including the prediction equation, a description of the methodology used to create the prediction equation, and algorithm/code (e.g., R/Matlab/Python/SAS/etc.) to create the prediction equation. The documentation will provide a thorough understanding of the methods, and allow for replication in the future.
(2)
(a) Enter the competition through
(b) Agree to all terms of Kaggle.com;
(c) Participants may be individuals or teams. For purposes of this Notice, “Entrant” or “Entrants” refers to individual participants and each individual participating as a member of a team.
(3)
(a) Must have agreed to the rules of this competition;
(b) Are either (a) in the case of an entity, incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, or (b) in the case of an individual, a citizen or permanent resident of the United States who are 18 years or older;
(c) Must not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of employment;
(d) Must assume risks, agree to indemnify, and waive claims against the
(e) Anyone whose job duties or official work capacity are closely related to the statistical model that is the subject of the competition is not eligible.
(4)
(a) The Census Bureau will monitor questions or discussion posted on the Kaggle.com competition site.
(b) Entrants may also direct questions to
(5)
(a) Until the last day of the competition, Entrants' scores and ranks on the Public Leaderboard on the Kaggle Web site will be calculated from the predicted results in an Entrants' submission and the ground truth of a validation dataset. At the close of the competition, the scores and associated ranks on the Public Leaderboard will be calculated from the predicted results and ground truth in the private testing dataset to confirm accuracy. The top-3 Entrant(s), based on the results using the private testing database, will be declared as tentative Prize Winners.
(b) A week before the end of the competition, there will be a visualization competition. The goal of this competition will be to create insightful visualizations from the data that was provided for the predictive modeling competition. There will be a single winner who will be chosen by Kaggle community vote on the Web site. This winner of the visualization competition will receive one thousand dollars as a prize.
(c) The evaluation metric that forms the basis for the Leaderboard scores will be displayed on the Web site. Because of variability in block group population counts, the evaluation metric may be weighted by the 2010 Census population block group count.
(d) As a condition of receipt of the prize, the winner(s) must deliver the algorithm's code and documentation to the Census Bureau. The source code must contain a description of resources required to build and run the algorithm. The individual winner, or each individual on a team should the winner be a team Entrant, will be required to complete, sign and return a Declaration of Eligibility, Non-Exclusive License, and Release form.
(e) The prize may be delivered by U.S. mail or electronically. To facilitate electronic delivery, the winner will need to submit financial account information sufficient to support electronic transfer of the prize.
(f) Regardless of the method of delivering the prize money, the Entrant(s) may be subject to Federal and/or state income taxation. Entrant(s) may be required to fill out tax and related forms before receiving the prize. Kaggle will provide necessary forms at the end of the challenge to the winning Entrants.
(g) For more information on judging and judging procedures, please refer to
(6)
(8)
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. For information on the net subsidy for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu), Hyundai HYSCO Ltd. (HYSCO), and Pohang Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (POSCO), for the companies reviewed, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3338.
On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the
On August 31, 2011, we received timely requests for review of the countervailing duty order from HYSCO. We also received a timely request for review of Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO, from United States Steel Corporation, petitioner. On October 3, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the CVD order on CORE from Korea covering the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.
On October 5, 2011, the Department issued the initial questionnaire to Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO, and the Government of Korea (GOK). On November 23, 2011, November 28, 2011, November 29, 2011, and November 30, 2011, the Department received questionnaire responses from HYSCO, Dongbu, POSCO, and the GOK, respectively. On March 2, 2012, July 16, 2012, and July 24, 2012 the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to HYSCO. On March 30, 2012, July 20, 2012, and August 7, 2012, the Department received supplemental questionnaire responses from HYSCO.
On March 22, 2012, the Department published in the
On December 20, 2011, petitioner submitted new subsidy allegations against Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO. On April 24, 2012, the Department initiated an investigation of the new subsidies allegations against Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to this review are Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO.
In the present administrative review, record evidence indicates that Pohang Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) is a majority-owned production facility of POSCO. Under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), if the firm that received a subsidy is a holding company, including a parent company with its own operations, the Department will attribute the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the holding company and its subsidiaries. Thus, we attributed subsidies received by POCOS to POSCO and its subsidiaries, net of intra-company sales. Dongbu reported that it is the only member of the Dongbu group in Korea that was involved with the sale of subject merchandise to the United States. HYSCO reported that it is a member of the Hyundai Motor Group and is affiliated with members of that group.
Products covered by this order are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
For those programs requiring the application of a won-denominated, short-term interest rate benchmark, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv), we used as our benchmark the company-specific weighted-average interest rate for commercial won-denominated loans outstanding during the POR. This approach is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i) and the Department's practice.
During the POR, HYSCO had outstanding countervailable long-term won-denominated loans from government-owned banks and Korean commercial banks. We used the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to respondents' countervailable long-term loans obtained through 2009:
(1) For countervailable, won-denominated long-term loans, we used, where available, the company-specific interest rates on the company's comparable commercial, won-denominated loans. If such loans were not available, we used, where available, the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds, as we have determined that the GOK did not control the Korean domestic bond market after 1991.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i), our benchmarks take into consideration the structure of the government-provided loans. For countervailable fixed-rate loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used benchmark rates issued in the same year that the government loans were issued.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry under examination and that the difference between the company-specific and/or country-wide AUL and the AUL from the IRS tables is significant. According to the IRS tables, the AUL of the steel industry is 15 years. No interested party challenged the 15-year AUL derived from the IRS tables. Thus, in this review, we have allocated, where applicable, all of the non-recurring subsidies provided to the producers/exporters of subject merchandise over a 15-year AUL.
Under the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises for Parts and Materials (Promotion of Specialized Enterprises Act), the GOK shares the costs of research and development (R&D) projects with companies or research institutions. The goal of the program is to support technology development for core parts and materials necessary for technological innovation and improvement in competitiveness.
In accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises Act, MKE prepares a base plan and a yearly execution plan for the development of the parts and materials industry.
R&D project costs are shared by the GOK and companies or research institutions as follows: (1) When the group of companies involved in the research is made up of a ratio above two-thirds small to medium-sized companies, the GOK provides a grant up to three-fourths of the project cost; (2) When the group of companies involved in the research is made up of a ratio below two-thirds small to medium-sized companies, the GOK provides a grant up to one-half of the project cost.
Upon completion of the project, if the GOK evaluates the project as “successful”, the participating companies must repay 40 percent of the R&D grant to the GOK over five years.
In the final results of administrative review of the CVD order on CORE From Korea covering the period January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, the Department determined that the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises Act was
HYSCO reported that during the POR, it was involved in one R&D project under this program.
To determine the benefit from the GOK funds HYSCO received under the Specialized Enterprises Act program, we calculated the GOK's contribution for the assistance that was apportioned to HYSCO.
With respect to the portion of the subsidy that we are treating as a long-term, interest-free contingent liability loan, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1) for the reasons described above, we find the benefit to be equal to the interest that HYSCO would have paid during the POR had it borrowed the full amount of the contingent liability loan during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1), we used a long-term interest rate as our benchmark to calculate the benefit of a contingent liability interest-free loan because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends (
To calculate the total net subsidy amount for this program, we summed the benefits provided under this program. Next, to calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the portion of the benefit allocated to the POR by HYSCO's total f.o.b. sales for 2010.
Under RSTA Article 26, a company can claim a tax credit equal to a certain percentage of its investments in its facilities.
Because information provided by the GOK indicates that the tax credit under this program is limited by law to enterprises or industries within a designated geographical region within the jurisdiction of the authority providing the subsidy, we preliminarily find that this program is regionally specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
HYSCO and POSCO indicated that their companies used RSTA Article 26 credits during the 2010 POR.
To calculate the subsidy rate for HYSCO and POSCO during the POR, we divided each company's benefit, which is the tax credit claimed by the company under this program in its tax return filed in 2010, by the company's total sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy provided under this program to be 0.06 percent
Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the GOK permitted companies that made an initial public offering between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to revalue their assets at a rate higher than the 25 percent required of most other companies under the Asset Revaluation Act. The Department has previously found this program to be countervailable. For example, in the
The benefit from this program is the difference that the revaluation of depreciable assets has on a company's tax liability each year. Evidence on the record indicates that, in 1989, POSCO made an asset revaluation that increased its depreciation expense. To calculate the benefit to POSCO, we took the additional depreciation listed in the tax return filed during the POR, which resulted from the company's asset revaluation, and multiplied that amount by the tax rate applicable to that tax return. We then divided the resulting benefit by POSCO's total free on board (f.o.b.) sales.
Under Article 106 of Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA), imports of anthracite coal are exempt from the value added tax (VAT). In the
Dongbu and HYSCO reported that their companies did not use the program during the POR.
As explained in the
In the
In the
Consistent with the
Under the Harbor Act, companies are allowed to construct infrastructure facilities at Korean ports; however, these facilities must be deeded back to the government. Because the ownership of these facilities reverts to the government, the government compensates private parties for the construction of these infrastructure facilities. Because a company must transfer to the government its infrastructure investment, under the Harbor Act, the GOK grants the company free usage of the facility and the right to collect fees from other users of the facility for a limited period of time. Once a company has recovered its cost of constructing the infrastructure, the company must pay the same usage fees as other users of the infrastructure.
In the
In the
In the
The GOK's Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act program is designed to foster future new industries and enhance the competitiveness of primary industries through fundamental technology development.
Under the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act, GOK provides R&D grants to support the areas of transportation system, industrial materials, robots, biomedical equipments, clean manufacturing foundation, knowledge services and industry convergence technology.
Pursuant to Article 11 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act, KEIT prepares a basic plan for the development of technology, on behalf of MKE.
The costs of the R&D projects under this program are shared by the company (or research institution) and the GOK.
When the project is evaluated as “successful” upon completion, the participating companies must repay 40 percent of the R&D grant to the GOK over five years.
Prior to and during the POR, HYSCO and POSCO received grants under the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act for R&D projects in which the companies participated with other firms.
Concerning HYSCO, the nature of the projects for which it received the grants is business proprietary and cannot be discussed in this public notice.
POSCO also reported receiving grants under the ITIPA prior to and during the POR.
The GOK's Development of Use, and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy program (formerly the Development of Alternative Energy program) is reportedly designed to contribute to the preservation of the environment, the sound and sustainable development of the national economy, and the promotion of national welfare by diversifying energy resources through promoting technological development, the use and diffusion of alternative energy, and reducing the discharge of gases harmful to humans or the environment by activating the new and renewable energy industry.
Under the Act on the Promotion of the Development, Use, and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy (New and Renewable Energy Act), the GOK provides R&D grants to support the following businesses: (1) Electric and Nuclear Power Development, (2) Energy and Resources Technology Development, and (3) New and Renewable Energy Technology Development.
Pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of the New and Renewable Energy Act, MKE prepares a base plan and a yearly execution plan for the development of new and renewable energy.
The costs of the R&D projects under this program are shared by the company (or research institution) and the GOK.
When the project is evaluated as “successful” upon completion, the participating companies must repay 40 percent of the R&D grant to the GOK.
During the POR, HYSCO received an energy-related grant under the New and Renewable Energy Act for a project in which the company participated with other firms.
Upon review of the information from HYSCO and the GOK, we preliminarily determine that the grant was bestowed specifically in connection with production of a product that is not subject merchandise and is related to the project examined in the prior administrative review.
In
During the POR, as in the prior administrative review, HYSCO had outstanding loans from KORES for investment in a copper mine in Mexico.
In
During the POR, HYSCO had outstanding loans from KNOC related to petroleum exploration projects.
During the POR, POSCO was the only respondent company that had pre-1992 long-term loans outstanding during the POR.
Under section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act, a subsidy can be found whenever the government “makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution, or entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution * * * to a person and a benefit is thereby conferred.” In the
In the
In the
Dongbu reported receiving short-term D/A financing from commercial banks that participated in KEXIM's Trade Rediscount Program and D/A Loans issued by the KDB and other government-owned banks during the POR. To calculate the benefits to Dongbu under these programs, we compared the amount that Dongbu paid on all of its D/A loans from commercial banks outstanding during the POI to the amount Dongbu paid on comparable commercial loans.
During the POR, HYSCO reported that it received a research and development grant under the Special Act on Balanced National Development (National Development Act).
Upon review of the information submitted by HYSCO and the GOK, we preliminarily determine that the grant pertains specifically to the production of a product that is not subject merchandise.
In January 1997, Korea's then second largest steelmaker, Hanbo Steel, collapsed under enormous debt and entered into bankruptcy proceedings, falling under the receivership of the
The Department initiated an investigation of petitioner's allegations.
With regard to petitioner's loan allegations, the information submitted by HYSCO and the GOK indicates that INI/HYSCO's 2004 purchase of Hanbo was an asset-only purchase and, thus, no liabilities were transferred to INI and HYSCO as part of the sale,
With regard to petitioner's debt forgiveness allegations, the questionnaire responses from HYSCO and the GOK indicate that none of Hanbo's debt, including debts owed to suppliers and small- and medium-sized firms, was forgiven in 1996.
Concerning the terms of the bankruptcy itself, Hanbo's final reorganization plan, as approved by the Bankruptcy Court, indicates that, for the purposes of restructuring Hanbo's debts, Hanbo's creditors were divided into five categories depending on the type of creditor and existence of security: Secured creditors, unsecured creditors, SME creditors, tax creditors, and related-party creditors.
The Department addressed the issue of debt forgiveness in the context of bankruptcy proceedings in the final results of
In the case of Hanbo's bankruptcy, we preliminarily find that it was conducted through legal proceedings generally available to all Korean companies.
Accordingly, absent any subsidy benefits that would be allocable to the POR, there is no need for the Department to analyze whether the 2004 sale of Hanbo was an arm's-length, fair-market-value transaction pursuant to the Department's change-in-ownership methodology.
Under RSTA Article 22, a domestic corporation, whose income for each business year ending before December 31, 2009, includes any dividend income from its investment in overseas resource development projects as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Enforcement Decree), is exempt from corporate tax for the portion of such dividend income that is exempted from the tax of the host country where the investment occurred. Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the RSTA prescribes the following investment projects as being eligible for this tax exemption: Agricultural products, Animal products, Fishery products, Forest products, and Mineral products.
POSCO reported that it had investments in overseas resource development projects as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree and received tax exemptions in the host country for these investments.
We preliminarily determine that the tax exemptions POSCO received under this program constitute a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone as described under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and confer a benefit as described under section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a). Further, we preliminarily determine that tax exemptions received under this program are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(1) because benefits are limited to firms with investment projects concerning agricultural, animal, fishery, forest, and mineral products.
Under this program, the benefit is equal to the amount of added income taxes that POSCO would have paid absent the program. The benefits POSCO received were less than 0.005 percent of its total sales. Therefore, we are preliminarily excluding the amount from POSCO's net countervailable subsidy rate.
Under Article 46 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (Industrial Cluster Act), a state or local government may provide tax exemptions as prescribed by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
During the POR, pursuant to Article 276 of the Local Tax Act, HYSCO received exemptions from the acquisition tax, registration tax, and property tax based on the location of its manufacturing facilities, Suncheon Works, in the Yulchon Industrial Complex, and its facilities in the Ulsan Works industrial complex designated under the Industrial Cluster Act.
We preliminarily determine that the tax reductions constitute a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone, as described under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, and a benefit under section 771(5)(E) and 19 CFR 351.509(a). We further preliminarily determine that the property tax exemptions provided under this program are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because benefits are limited to enterprises located within designated geographical regions. Our findings in this regard are consistent with the Department's practice.
To calculate the benefit, we subtracted the amount of taxes paid by the firms from the amounts that would have been paid absent the program. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we
The following programs were part of the petitioner's new subsidy allegations on which the Department initiated an investigation.
The Department included the following programs in its October 5, 2011, initial questionnaire. We preliminarily determine that these programs were not used by the reviewed companies during the POR.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rates for HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu to be 0.08, 0.16, 0.11, percent
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced by HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. The Department will also instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of zero percent on shipments of the subject merchandise produced by HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. We will notify parties of the schedule for submitting case briefs and rebuttal briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1), respectively. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(b)(4), representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.
Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197.
The merchandise subject to the orders is natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise covered by the orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive.
The Department published antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina on December 10, 2001.
On July 2, 2012, the Department initiated the current sunset reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218.
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested parties respond to a notice of initiation, the Department shall, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoke the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate in these sunset reviews, we are revoking the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to these orders entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after August 2, 2012, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication of the last continuation notice. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty and countervailing duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.
These five-year (“sunset”) reviews and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is soliciting applications for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric to persons who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers in the United States.
The Department hereby solicits applications from persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers in the United States for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric. Interested persons must submit an application on the form provided to the address listed below by October 22, 2012. The Department will cause to be published in the
To be considered, applications must be received or postmarked by 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012.
Applications must be submitted to the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 30003, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230 (telephone: (202) 482-3400). Application forms may be obtained from that office (via mail or facsimile) or from the following Internet address:
Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2043.
Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (the Act) created two tariff rate quotas (TRQs), providing for temporary reductions in the import duties on limited quantities of two categories of worsted wool fabrics suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers: (1) For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) heading 9902.51.11); and (2) for worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less (HTS heading 9902.51.12). On August 6, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Trade Act of 2002, which includes several amendments to Title V of the Act. On December 3, 2004, the Act was further amended pursuant to the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004, Public Law 108-429, by increasing the TRQ for worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns, HTS 9902.51.11, to an annual total level of 5.5 million square meters, and extending it through 2007, and increasing the TRQ for average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less, HTS 9902.51.15 (previously 9902.51.12), to an annual total level of 5 million square meters and extending it through 2006. On August 17, 2006 the Act was further amended pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280, which extended both TRQs, 9902.51.11 and 9902.51.15, through 2009. The Senate-passed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the TRQ for both HTS numbers through 2014.
The Act requires that the TRQs be allocated to persons who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers in the United States. On October 24, 2005, the Department adopted final regulations establishing procedures for allocating the TRQ.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is soliciting applications for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric to persons who weave such fabrics in the United States.
The Department hereby solicits applications from persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who weave worsted wool fabrics in the United States for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric. Interested persons must submit an application on the form provided to the address listed below by October 22, 2012. The Department will cause to be published in the
To be considered, applications must be received or postmarked by 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012.
Applications must be submitted to the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 30003, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230 (telephone: (202) 482-3400). Application forms may be obtained from that office (via facsimile or mail) or from the following Internet address:
Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2043.
Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (the Act) created two tariff rate quotas (TRQs), providing for temporary reductions in the import duties on limited quantities of two categories of worsted wool fabrics suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers: (1) For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) heading 9902.51.11); and (2) for worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less (HTS heading 9902.51.12). On August 6, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Trade Act of 2002, which includes several amendments to Title V of the Act. On December 3, 2004, the Act was further amended pursuant to the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004, Public Law 108-429. The 2004 amendment included authority for the Department to allocate a TRQ for new HTS category, HTS 9902.51.16. This HTS category refers to worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameter of 18.5 microns or less. The amendment provided that HTS 9902.51.16 is for the benefit of persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who weave such worsted wool fabric in the United States that is suitable for making men's and boys' suits. The TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 provided for temporary reductions in the import duties on 2,000,000 square meters annually for 2005 and 2006. The amendment requires that the TRQ be allocated to persons who weave worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameter of 18.5 microns or less, which is suitable for use in making men's and boys' suits, in the United States. On August 17, 2006, the Act was further amended pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280, which extended the TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 through 2009. The Senate-passed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 through 2014.
On October 24, 2005, the Department adopted final regulations establishing procedures for allocating the TRQ.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT), Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Salmon Subcommittee, and Model Evaluation Workgroup (MEW) will review proposed salmon methodology changes in a joint work session, which is open to the public.
The work session will be held Wednesday, October 10, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesday, October 11, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The work session will be held at the Shilo Inns Suites Hotel, Willamette 1 Room, 11707 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97220.
Mr. Mike Burner, Salmon Management Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The purpose of the work session is to discuss and review proposed changes to analytical methods used in salmon management. Potential topics for the work session include but are not limited to; bias-correction methods for mark-selective coho fisheries, size limit evaluation methods for Chinook fisheries, and a preliminary assessment of abundance-based management of California Coastal Chinook. The final list of topics for the work session is scheduled to be adopted by the Council at their September 13-18, 2012 meeting in Boise, ID.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STT, SSC Salmon Subcommittee, and MEW for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene Public Hearings on proposed Reef Fish Amendment 37 addressing revisions to the gray triggerfish rebuilding plan including adjustments to the annual catch limits and annual catch targets for the commercial and recreational sectors. Public hearings will also be held simultaneously on a proposed Framework Action to modify the 2013 recreational gag fishing season, consider changes to the gag bag limit, and consider modifying or eliminating the February 1 through March 31 recreational closed season on shallow-water grouper.
The public hearings will be held from October 15-18, 2012 at eight locations throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The public hearings will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates, see
The public hearings will be held in the following locations: Naples, St. Petersburg, and Destin, FL; Gulf Shores, AL; D'Iberville, MS; Kenner, LA; Galveston and Corpus Christi, TX.
For Reef Fish Amendment 37: Dr. Carrie Simmons, Fishery Biologist; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630 x231. For the gag Framework Action: Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630 x227.
The Council will convene public hearings on two proposed actions to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. Reef Fish Amendment 37 proposes modifications to the gray triggerfish rebuilding plan including modifications to the annual catch limits and annual catch targets for the commercial and recreational sectors. Proposed commercial management measures needed to meet the reduction in the annual catch limit and annual catch target for gray triggerfish include establishing a fixed closed season and a trip limit. Proposed recreational management measures include establishing a fixed closed season and modifying the recreational bag limit for gray triggerfish within the 20-reef fish aggregate bag limit. This amendment also includes proposed modifications to the recreational accountability measures to allow NOAA Fisheries Service to close the recreational sector once the annual catch target is reached or projected to be reached, and if the annual catch limit is exceeded to apply an overage adjustment by reducing the annual catch limit and optional annual catch target the following fishing season.
The Framework Action to set the 2013 gag recreational fishing season, bag limit, and to modify the February through March shallow-water grouper closed season contains alternatives for
Copies of the public hearing documents can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or by visiting the Council's Web site at
These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a conference call of its Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT). A listening station will be available at the Pacific Council offices for interested members of the public, and there may be opportunities to attend the meeting remotely.
The conference call will be held Tuesday, October 9, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held via conference call, with a public listening station available at the Pacific Council offices, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.
Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The primary purpose of the conference call is to discuss a proposed harvest parameters workshop. Other items that may be discussed include the 2012 Pacific sardine stock assessment update, and items related to the November 2012 Council meeting.
Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the CPSMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, at (503) 820-2280, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meetings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a meeting of the Standing, Special Shrimp and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC), including a joint session of the Standing SSC and Socioeconomic SSC, and a joint session of the Gulf Council's Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's SSC; and a separate meeting of the Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committee.
The Standing, Special Shrimp and Special Reef Fish SSC meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, and conclude by noon, Thursday, October 11, 2012. The Socioeconomic SSC meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, October 10th and conclude by 5 p.m. Thursday, October 11, 2012.
The meeting will be held at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay, 2900 Bayport Drive, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 874-1234.
For the Standing, Special Shrimp and Special Reef Fish SSC: Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician. For the Socioeconomic SSC: Dr. Assane Diagne, Economist; both located at Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The Standing and Special Shrimp SSC will meet jointly on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, to review stock assessments on brown shrimp, white shrimp and pink
The Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committee will convene on Wednesday, October 10 and Thursday, October 11 to discuss the structure and roles of the Scientific and Statistical Committees and issues related to the red snapper individual fishing quota (IFQ) program and its 5-year review, including an evaluation of the economic performance of the program, the 2011 red snapper IFQ report, IFQ survey results, trends in the program, and the review process. The committee will also discuss issues related to the allocation of red snapper resources, including an economic evaluation of red snapper allocation and social aspects of allocation. The committee also plans to elect a new chair and vice-chair.
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or can be downloaded from the Council's ftp site:
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
In conformance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of its Performance Review Board.
Director, Human Capital Management, Office of Human Resources, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Karen Karlinchak at (571) 272-8717.
The membership of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product and service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and to delete products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and service to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following product and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), submitted the following recordkeeping requirement notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). CNCS requested that OMB review and approve its emergency request by September 27, 2012, for a period of six months. This recordkeeping requirement, located in 45 CFR 2540.205-.206, may be obtained by contacting Amy Borgstrom, (202) 606-6930 or by email at
Because CNCS requested OMB's approval of this emergency request by September 27, 2012, there will not be enough time for the public to provide comments through this
T
CNCS and its grantees must ensure that national service beneficiaries are protected from harm and the recordkeeping requirements of the final rule are critical to that responsibility. Moreover, as CNCS and OMB have previously communicated, CNCS is working hard to ensure it is fully compliant with the Paperwork Reduction Act and with OMB's information collection policies and procedures.
If you have any questions, contact Amy Borgstrom at 202-606-6930 or
Department of the Army, DoD.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place:
Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the USMA Board of Visitors. Written statements should be sent to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at: United States Military Academy, Office of the Secretary of the General Staff (MASG), 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996-1905 or faxed to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (845) 938-3214. Written statements must be received no later than five working days prior to the next meeting in order to provide time for member consideration. By rule, no member of the public attending open meetings will be allowed to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the Board.
The Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact is Ms. Deadra Ghostlaw, (845) 938-4200,
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office has received a request for Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, from the Town of Ocean Isle Beach to develop and implement a shoreline protection plan that includes the installation of a terminal groin structure on the west side of Shallotte Inlet (not a federally maintained navigational channel) and the nourishment of the oceanfront shoreline along the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach.
A public scoping meeting for the Draft EIS will be held at Ocean Isle Beach Town Hall, located at 3 West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, on October 3, 2012, at 6 p.m. Written comments will be received until October 26, 2012.
Copies of comments and questions regarding scoping of the Draft EIS may be submitted to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, ATTN: File Number 2011-01241, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
Questions about the proposed action and Draft EIS can be directed to Ms. Emily Hughes, Project Manager, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone: (910) 251-4635. Additional description of the Town's proposal can be found at the following link,
a. Potential impacts to marine biological resources (benthic organisms, passageway for fish and other marine life) and Essential Fish Habitat.
b. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered marine mammals, birds, fish, and plants.
c. Potential impacts associated with using inlets as a sand source.
d. Potential impacts to adjacent shoreline changes on the east side of Shallotte Inlet, or along Holden Beach.
e. Potential impacts to Navigation, commercial and recreational.
f. Potential impacts to the long-term management of the inlet and oceanfront shorelines.
g. Potential effects on regional sand sources and how it relates to sand management practices and North Carolina's Beach Inlet Management Practices.
h. Potential effects of shoreline protection.
i. Potential impacts on public health and safety.
k. Potential impacts to recreational and commercial fishing.
l. The compatibility of the material for nourishment.
m. Potential impacts to cultural resources.
n. Cumulative impacts of past, present, and foreseeable future dredging and nourishment activities.
The USACE will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Endangered Species Act; and with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office under the National Historic Preservation Act. Additionally, the USACE will coordinate the Draft EIS with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) to assess the potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) to determine the projects consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The USACE will closely work with NCDCM and NCDWQ in the development of the EIS to ensure the process complies with all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. It is the intention of both the USACE and the State of North Carolina to consolidate the NEPA and SEPA processes thereby eliminating duplication.
Department of the Army (DA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), DoD.
Notice of intent.
The Corps, Seattle District, received permit applications for Pacific International Terminal, Inc.'s Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway's Custer Spur Rail Expansion projects. DA permits are required for both projects pursuant to either Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 United States Code (U.S.C.) 403) and/or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The Corps has determined the proposed projects are interrelated and may have significant individual and/or cumulative impacts on the human environment. An EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4232(2)(c), and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Preparation of the EIS will support the Corps' eventual decision to either issue, issue with modification or deny DA permits for the proposed actions. The EIS will assess the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the projects and is intended to be sufficient in scope to address Federal, State, and local requirements, environmental and socio-economic issues concerning the proposed action, and permit reviews. The EIS process begins with the publication of this Notice of Intent. The EIS will be prepared according to the Corps' procedures for implementing NEPA, 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 325, Appendix B, 53 Federal Regulations 3120 (February 3, 1988), and consistent with the Corps' policy to facilitate public understanding and review of agency proposals.
The scoping period will start on September 24, 2012. Written comments regarding the scope of the EIS—including the environmental analysis, range of alternatives, and potential mitigation actions—should be received at the address below or submitted by email to:
Written comments concerning the project and requests to be included on the EIS notification mailing list should be submitted to: Mr. Randel Perry, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Care of: GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies, 1100 112th Avenue Northeast, Suite 400, Bellevue, Washington 98004.
Mr. Randel Perry via email at:
1.
2.
Pacific International Terminals, Inc., is proposing the GPT project to be developed on approximately 350 acres and would include a three-berth, deep-water wharf. The proposed wharf would be 3,000 feet long and 105 feet wide, with access to suitably deep water provided by an approximately 1,100 foot-long by 50 foot-wide trestle. Upland facilities will include open air and covered commodity storage, each serviced by an on-site rail loop. A system of conveyors would connect the commodity storage areas to the trestle and wharf. The upland facilities would also contain rail unloading facilities, roadways, service buildings, storm water treatment facilities, and utility infrastructure. Development of these facilities will result in impacts to approximately 145 acres of wetlands and numerous drainage features (ditches). Mitigation for proposed unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to comply with the Corps' 2008 mitigation rule (33 CFR 322.1). Commodities would be delivered to the GPT by rail via the existing BNSF Railway's Custer Spur line from the Bellingham subdivision main line. BNSF Railway is proposing to upgrade its existing Custer Spur line with additional tracks and sidings, which will impact approximately 17 acres of wetlands and involve modifications to two creek crossings and several ditches. Mitigation for proposed unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. will be
3.
4.
The purpose of scoping is to assist the Corps in defining issues, public concerns, and alternatives and the depth to which they will be evaluated in the EIS. The Corps has prepared project information documents to familiarize agencies, Tribes, the public, and interested organizations with the proposed projects and potential environmental issues. Copies of the documents will be available at the public meeting and at the Web site
a. Public scoping meetings will be held to present an overview of the GPT and Custer Spur projects and to afford all parties an opportunity to provide comments regarding the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts. The public scoping meetings will be held as follows:
During the scoping period, a continuous “on-line scoping meeting” will be hosted on the EIS Web site at
b. Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS include but are not limited to project-specific and cumulative effects on navigation (e.g., vessel traffic and navigational safety); marine aquatic habitats, including State-designated aquatic reserves; marine aquatic species, including Endangered Species Act listed species and Washington State species of concern; Tribal treaty rights; wetland and riparian habitat and wildlife; railroad and vehicle traffic; cultural, historic, and archeological resources; air and water quality; noise; recreation; land use; and aesthetics.
c. The Corps will serve as the lead agency for compliance with NEPA, and Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (the County) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) will serve as the lead agencies for compliance with SEPA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Coast Guard will serve as cooperating agencies under NEPA. The Corps will consult with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer and applicable Tribes to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act; the National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Essential Fish Habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and applicable Tribes to comply with treaty provisions on fishing rights.
d. Development of the draft EIS will begin after the close of the scoping period. The draft EIS is currently scheduled to be available for public review and comment in January 2014.
e. A 120-day public review period will be provided for all interested parties, individuals, and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS. All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified when the draft EIS is issued.
f. All comments received will become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release, as appropriate, in their entirety, including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses if included in the comment.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Final notice; correction.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a document in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO-R, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.
Mr. David Olson at 202-761-4922 or by email at
In the
On page 10273, second column, correct the first sentence of NWP 15 to read as follows to reflect the fact that the U.S. Coast Guard authorizes bridges over navigable waters through permits issued under other statutory authorities, such as the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525, 528, 530, and 533), instead of Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401): “Discharges of dredged or fill material incidental to the construction of a bridge across navigable waters of the United States, including cofferdams, abutments, foundation seals, piers, and temporary construction and access fills, provided the construction of the bridge structure has been authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or other applicable laws.”
On page 10287, second column, correct the first sentence of paragraph (d)(2) of general condition 31 to read as follows: “For all NWP activities that require pre-construction notification and result in the loss of greater than
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of availability and public hearings.
DOE announces the availability of the
DOE invites the public to comment on the draft EIS during the public comment period, which ends November 5, 2012. DOE will consider all comments postmarked or received during the comment period in preparing the final EIS and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. In addition to receiving comments in writing and by email [See
Requests for paper or electronic copies of the draft EIS, requests to speak at the public hearings, or submission of written comments should be directed to: Mr. Mark W. Lusk, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 3610 Collins Ferry Road, M/S I07, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880. Requests or comments can also be made by electronic mail to
The draft EIS is available on the NETL Web page at
For further information about this project or the draft EIS, please contact Mr. Mark W. Lusk (see
DOE's proposed action is to provide financial assistance to NRG under the CCPI Program to support construction and operation of NRG's Parish PCCS Project. DOE would provide NRG with up to $167 million of the overall project cost, or about 20 percent of the estimated total costs. This funding would be used for project design and development, procurement of capital equipment, construction, CO
The proposed Parish PCCS Project would use an advanced amine-based CO
The captured CO
Consistent with DOE's requirements under CCPI Round 3, NRG identified the following objectives for the Parish PCCS Project:
• Demonstration of advanced amine-based CO
• Integration of a cogeneration plant into the project to meet the specific power and steam requirements of the CO
• Demonstration of EOR with CO
• Demonstration of a CO
DOE prepared this EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the proposed Parish PCCS Project. In the absence of DOE cost-shared funding, NRG could still elect to construct and operate the proposed project. Therefore, the DOE no-action alternative could result in one of two scenarios:
• The proposed Parish PCCS Project would not be built, or
• The proposed Parish PCCS Project would be built by NRG without benefit of DOE cost-shared funding.
The draft EIS analyzes the environmental consequences that may result from the proposed action and the no action alternative. Potential impacts identified during the scoping process and analyzed in the draft EIS relate to the following: Air quality and climate; greenhouse gases; geology; physiography and soils; groundwater; surface water; wetlands and floodplains; biological resources; cultural resources; land use and aesthetics; traffic and transportation; noise; materials and waste management; human health and safety; utilities; community services; socioeconomics; and environmental justice. DOE also intends to use the NEPA process and the analyses completed for the draft EIS to satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and DOE regulations regarding impacts to floodplains and wetlands.
DOE distributed copies of the draft EIS to Members of Congress; Native American tribal governments; federal, state, and local officials; and agencies, organizations, and individuals who may be interested or affected. Copies of the draft EIS are available for review at the George Memorial Library, 1001 Golfview Drive, Richmond, TX 77469; the Albert George Branch Library, 9230 Gene Street, Needville, TX 77461; the Wharton County Library, 1920 North Fulton Street, Wharton, TX 77488; and the Jackson County Memorial Library, 411 North Wells Street, Room 121, Edna, TX 77957. The draft EIS will also be available on the Internet at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee (EAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these
Monday, October 15, 2012, 1:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 8 a.m.-4:20 p.m.
Capital Hilton Hotel, 1001 16th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Matthew Rosenbaum, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone: (202) 586-1060 or by email:
The meeting agenda may change to accommodate EAC business. For EAC agenda updates, see the EAC Web site at:
•
•
•
•
The following electronic file formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you must submit one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. You must also explain the reasons why you believe the deleted information is exempt from disclosure. DOE is responsible for the final determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information regulations (10 CFR 1004.11).
Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE may be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE, therefore, encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by email. If comments are submitted by regular mail, the Department requests that they be accompanied by a CD or diskette containing electronic files of the submission.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 22, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0272, to: (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0272, which is available for either public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually at a minimum.
There is a decrease in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The decrease is not due to any program changes. The most recently approved ICR (ICR 1899.06) estimated the total burden associated with the regulation by adding together the burdens and costs from the ICR for the existing standard (ICR 1899.05) and the revised standard (ICR 2335.02); portions of the rule requirements and burden activities in ICRs 1899.06 and 2335.02 overlap. This ICR updates all estimates and removes any duplicate burdens.
There is no capital/startup cost associated with this ICR, which is a decrease from the most recently approved ICR. There are also changes in the O&M costs in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. These changes occurred because the most recently-revised standard has been in effect for more than three years and the requirements are different during initial compliance as compared to on-going compliance. This ICR does not include the costs and burden for conducting initial compliance tests and notifications. Additionally, this ICR assumes that all sources have already purchased monitoring and testing equipment to comply with the standard.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 22, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0274, to: (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0274, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.
There is an increase in costs for both the respondents and the Agency from the most recently approved ICR. The increase in burden cost is due to an increase in labor rates. This ICR uses updated labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate burden costs.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Starting October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.
While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's electronic reporting site—
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) debars Jonathan M. Slaughter from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”) for a period of three years. The Bureau takes this action to protect the E-Rate Program from waste, fraud, and abuse.
Debarment commences on the date Mr. Jonathan M. Slaughter receives the debarment letter or October 22, 2012, whichever date comes first, for a period of three years.
Joy M. Ragsdale, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Joy Ragsdale may be contacted by telephone at (202) 418-1697 or by email at
The Bureau debarred Mr. Jonathan M. Slaughter from the schools and libraries service support mechanism for a period of three years pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8. Attached is the debarment letter, DA 12-1467, which was mailed to Mr. Slaughter and released on September 10, 2012. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at
Re: Notice of Debarment
File No. EB-12-IH-0050
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) hereby notifies you that, pursuant to Section 54.8 of its rules, you are prohibited from participating in activities associated with or relating to the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (E-Rate program) for three years from either the date of your receipt of this Notice of Debarment, or of its publication in the
On May 9, 2012, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) sent you a Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceeding (Notice of Suspension)
As discussed in the Notice of Suspension, on September 29, 2011, you pled guilty to converting approximately $892,000 in E-Rate checks, payable to six schools and 14 school districts located in 13 states, to your personal use while you were the owner and president of E-Rate Consulting Services, LLC (ECS).
In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you were required to file with the Commission any opposition to your suspension or its scope, or to your proposed debarment or its scope, no later than 30 calendar days from either the date of your receipt of the Notice of Suspension or of its publication in the
For the foregoing reasons, you are debarred from participating in activities associated with or related to the E-Rate program for three years from the Debarment Date.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 22, 2012.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Leneta G. Gregorie, 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.
Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is announcing the Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) members it has selected for the 2010 seventh round review cycle under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation. This notice also prescribes the deadline by which Bank members selected for review must submit Community Support Statements to FHFA.
Bank members selected for the review cycle under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to FHFA on or before November 5, 2012.
Bank members selected for the 2010 seventh round review cycle under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to FHFA either by hard-copy mail at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Ninth Floor, Housing Mission and Goals (DHMG), 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or by electronic mail at
Rona Richardson, Administrative Office Manager, Housing Mission and Goals (DHMG), Federal Housing Finance Agency, by telephone at 202-649-3224, by electronic mail at
Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service Bank members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances.
Under the rule, FHFA selects approximately one-eighth of the members in each Bank district for community support review each calendar quarter. 12 CFR 1290.2(a). FHFA will not review an institution's community support performance until it has been a Bank member for at least one year. Selection for review is not, nor should it be construed as, any indication of either the financial condition or the community support performance of the member.
Each Bank member selected for review must complete a Community Support Statement and submit it to FHFA by the November 5, 2012 deadline prescribed in this notice. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(1)(ii) and (c). On or before October 5, 2012, each Bank will notify the members in its district that have been selected for the 2010 seventh round community support review cycle that they must complete and submit to
FHFA has selected the following members for the 2010 seventh round community support review cycle:
To encourage the submission of public comments on the community support performance of Bank members, on or before October 5, 2012, each Bank will notify its Advisory Council and nonprofit housing developers, community groups, and other interested parties in its district of the members
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by FR Y-12 or FR Y-12A, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services (Advisory Council). Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). The Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services provides advice on how to prevent or reduce the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on people with the disease and their caregivers. The Advisory Council will discuss recommendations made in May, as well as ideas and topics for future recommendations.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 800, Washington, DC 20201.
Helen Lamont, Ph.D. (202) 690-7996,
Topics of the Meeting: The Advisory Council will discuss recommendations made in May, as well as ideas and topics for future recommendations.
42 U.S.C. 11225; Section 2(e)(3) of the National Alzheimer's Project Act. The panel is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
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 committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has beendelegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
The form is also used by health care facilities to document their plan of correction and by CMS, the states, facilities, purchasers, consumers, advocacy groups, and the public as a source of information about quality of care and facility compliance.
2.
In order to assess the impact of the final rule (76 FR 627) on ESRD beneficiary experiences, satisfaction, and health outcomes, CMS is requesting OMB approval to obtain input on the effect of the final rule on our ESRD beneficiaries. The purpose of this data collection effort is to assess beneficiary satisfaction and experience of care in terms of access to services, quality of care, outcomes, and cost. This will be measured through telephone surveys with ESRD beneficiaries and through interviews with key stakeholders in the renal health care community. The information obtained from both the beneficiary respondents and key stakeholders will be used to provide an initial reporting of the ESRD PPS/QIP's effects on beneficiary satisfaction and experience of care and to inform the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) of the impact of the ESRD PPS/QIP on patient satisfaction and experience of care, including unintended consequences, for consideration of future modification of the programs.
Subsequent to the publication of the 60-day
3.
4.
Reapproval of this package is being requested as a result of CMS, in its administration of the PCIP program, serving as a covered entity under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Without a valid authorization, the PCIP program is unable to disclose information, with respect to an applicant or enrollee, about the status of an application, enrollment, premium billing or claim, to individuals of the applicant's or enrollee's choosing. The HIPAA Authorization Form has been modeled after CMS' Medicare HIPAA Authorization Form (OMB control number 0938-0930) and is used by applicants or enrollees to designate someone else to communicate with PCIP about their protected health information (PHI).
Unless permitted or required by law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule (§ 164.508) prohibits CMS' PCIP program (a HIPAA covered entity) from disclosing an individual's protected health information without a valid authorization. In order to be valid, an authorization must include specified core elements and statements.
CMS will make available to PCIP applicants and enrollees a standard, valid authorization to enable beneficiaries to communicate with PCIP about their personal health information. This is a critical tool because the population the PCIP program serves is comprised of individuals with pre-existing conditions who may be incapacitated and need an advocate to help them apply for or receive benefits from the program. This standard authorization will simplify the process of requesting information disclosure for beneficiaries and minimize the response time for the PCIP program.
Each individual will be asked to complete the form which will include providing the individual's name, PCIP account number (if known), date of birth, what personal health information they agree to share, the length of time the individual agrees their personal health information can be shared, the names and addresses of the third party the individual wants PCIP to share their personal health information with, and an attestation that the individual is giving PCIP permission to share their personal health information with the third party listed in the form. This completed form will be submitted to the PCIP benefits administrator, GEHA, which contracts with CMS.
We estimate that it will take approximately 15 minutes per applicant to complete and submit a HIPAA Authorization Form to the PCIP program.
The federally-run PCIP program operates in 23 states plus the District of Columbia and receives an average of 35,000 enrollment applications per year. To estimate the number of PCIP applicants and enrollees who may complete an authorization, we looked at the percentage of individuals who request an authorization in Medicare as a baseline. Medicare estimates 3% of its population will submit an authorization per year. However, since the PCIP program caters to an exclusive population comprised of individuals who have one or more pre-existing conditions, we believe it is likely we could receive double the percentage estimated by Medicare. Accordingly, PCIP estimates 6% (or 2,100) of its applicants and enrollees may submit an authorization per year.
It is estimated that up to 2,100 applicants and enrollees may submit an authorization annually. There is no cost to PCIP beneficiaries to request, complete, submit, or have the authorization form processed by PCIP. It should take approximately 15 minutes for a beneficiary to complete the authorization form. 15 minutes multiplied by 2,100 beneficiaries equals 525 hours.
5.
Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS-1500 and the CMS-1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS-1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS-1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid).
However, as the CMS-1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use by
Most recently, the National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) has revised the CMS-1500. The NUCC began revision work on the 1500 Claim Form, version 02/12 in 2009. The goal of this work was to align the paper form with some of the changes in the electronic Health Care Claim: Professional (837), 005010X222 Technical Report Type 3 (5010) and 005010X222A1 Technical Report Type 3 (5010A1). During the revision work, consideration was given to different approaches to revising the form. The NUCC decided to proceed with making “minor changes” to the current form, which was defined as no physical changes to the existing form lines or underlying layout of the form. Once the CMS-1500 (02/12) has been approved, the CMS-1500 (08/05) will be discontinued after a form runoff period during which both the CMS-1500 (08/05) and the CMS-1500 (02/12) can be used.
6.
Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS-1500 and the CMS-1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS-1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS-1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other Federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid).
However, as the CMS-1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use by beneficiaries when they file their own claims. Therefore, the CMS-1490S (Patient's Request for Medicare Payment) was explicitly developed for easy use by beneficiaries who file their own claims. The form can be obtained from any Social Security office or Medicare carrier.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012.OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: CMS Desk Officer,Fax Number: (202) 395-6974,Email:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 20, 2012.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1270, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 20, 2012.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1267 to Luis
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products (CBP Form 3311). This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Written comments should be received on or before November 20, 2012, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses:
30-day Notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Subpart O, “Well Control and Production Safety Training.” This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the revised paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.
You must submit comments by October 22, 2012.
Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email (
•
• Email
Nicole Mason, Regulations Development Branch, (703) 787-1605, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to
Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well trained personnel using technology, precautions, and other techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstructions to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health.” To carry out these responsibilities, BSEE has issued rules governing training requirements for certain personnel working on the OCS at 30 CFR part 250, subpart O, Well Control and Production Safety Training. Responses are mandatory or required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. The BSEE protects information considered proprietary according to 30 CFR
The BSEE will use the information collected under subpart O regulations to ensure that workers on the OCS are properly trained with the necessary skills to perform their jobs in a safe and pollution-free manner. In some instances, BSEE will conduct oral interviews of offshore employees to evaluate the effectiveness of a company's training program. We do the oral interviews to gauge how effectively the companies are implementing their own training program. The BSEE will use the interview form and keep the information internally. This information is necessary to verify training compliance with the requirements.
To comply with the public consultation process, on April 16, 2012, we published a
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment/information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Lake County Department of Public Works (applicant), for an incidental take permit (ITP) #TE83706A-0. The applicant requests a 5-year ITP under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request public comment on the permit application and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by October 22, 2012.
If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.
Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email:
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
The applicant is requesting take of approximately 0.27 ac of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a roadway improvement, and seeks a 5-year permit. The 3.95-ac project is located on parcel #09-23-26-000400002700 within Sections 09 and 10, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 0.54 mitigation credits within the Tiger Creek Conservation Bank.
We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we determined that the ITP is a “low-effect” project and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.
We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment/information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Michael Richardson (applicant), for renewal of an incidental take permit (ITP; #TE151087-0) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request public comment on the permit application and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by October 22, 2012.
If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.
Erin M. Gawera, telephone: 904-731-3121; email:
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
The applicant has been approved for take of approximately 2.2 acres (ac) of Florida scrub-jay (
We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we determined that the ITP is a low-effect project and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). The notice for this permit was published in the
We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP extension application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior; Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended; and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay,
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the BLM and the Forest Service will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies concerning amendment of BLM and Forest Service land management plans and possible issuance of the right-of-way grant by the BLM. Your input will help the BLM, the Forest Service, and Commission staffs determine what issues to evaluate in the EIS that FERC is preparing for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. Please note that your comments must be received by October 29, 2012, to receive full consideration in the preparation of the EIS.
You may submit comments either in written form or orally or both. You may submit your comments orally or in writing at public scoping meetings announced in the FERC's Notice of Intent published on August 13, 2012 (77 FR 48138), or at three additional public scoping meetings scheduled by the FERC as lead agency, in cooperation with the BLM and the Forest Service at the following times and locations:
The FERC is the lead agency for preparation of the EIS for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline so written comments on actions by the BLM or the Forest Service must be submitted through the FERC's comment process and within the timelines described in this notice so that they may be considered in preparation of the EIS.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the FERC. In all instances, please reference the docket number for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PF12-17-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
•
•
Any comments submitted directly to the BLM and the Forest Service will be forwarded to the FERC for inclusion in the public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that the entire text of your comments—including your personal identifying information—would be publicly available through the FERC elibrary system.
Holly Orr, BLM National Project Manager, 28910 Hwy 20 West, Hines, OR 97738; telephone: 541-573-4501; fax: 541-573-4411; email:
Section 313 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act requires the Forest Service and the BLM to cooperate with the Commission when considering aspects of an application for Federal authorization of natural gas pipelines. Section 372 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the Secretary of Energy in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and Defense to coordinate all applicable Federal authorizations and environmental reviews relating to a proposed or existing utility facility, including an agreement to prepare a single environmental review document to be used as the basis for all Federal authorization decisions.
On Monday, August 13, 2012, the FERC published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the planned Jordan Cove Liquefaction and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline projects in the
The BLM and the Forest Service will consider the FERC EIS in their evaluation of proposed land management plan amendments. The BLM will also consider adoption of the FERC EIS in its evaluation of, and response to, the application for a right-of-way grant by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline LP.
The BLM and the Forest Service have identified possible land management plan amendments that may be necessary to make provision for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. The BLM and the Forest Service have jurisdiction by law for amendment of their land management plans. Unless otherwise noted in the description of the Proposed Action, these amendments would only apply to the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, and they would be implemented only if FERC authorizes the construction of the Project. The BLM has jurisdiction by law for response to the application by the proponents of the proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline for a right-of-way grant to occupy Federal lands if the Commission authorizes the Project.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Forest Management Act require that actions on these Federal lands be consistent with the land management plans for the administrative units where the action would occur. In order for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to proceed, the BLM must issue a right-of-way grant for occupancy of Federal lands by the
Additional information about the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline 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 hosted by the Commission will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the BLM is to respond to a right-of way grant application originally submitted by Pacific Connector on April 17, 2006, to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a natural gas pipeline that crosses lands and facilities administered by the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service. In addition, there is a need for the BLM and the Forest Service to consider amending affected district and forest land management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-way.
The proposed action of the BLM and the Forest Service has two components. First, the BLM would amend its Resource Management Plans (RMP) for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts, and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, while the Forest Service would amend its Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for the Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National Forests to make provisions for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. Second, in accordance with 43 CFR 2884.26, the BLM would issue a right-of-way grant in response to Pacific Connector's application for the Project to occupy Federal lands, with the written concurrence of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. Each agency may submit specific stipulations, including mitigations, for inclusion in the right-of-way grant related to lands, facilities, and easements within their respective jurisdictions.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the lead agency for preparation of an EIS for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.
The Secretary of the Interior has delegated authority to the BLM to potentially grant a right-of-way in response to Pacific Connector's application for natural gas transmission on Federal lands under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The Responsible Official for the proposed amendments of the BLM RMPs and potential issuance of the right-of-way grant is the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director. The Responsible Official for the proposed amendment of Forest Service LRMPs is the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest. In accordance with 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2), the Deciding Official for the Forest Service has elected to use the 1982 planning rule procedures to amend Forest Service LRMPs as provided in the transition procedures of the 2000 planning rule.
If the BLM adopts the new FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector pipeline project (in Docket No. PF12-17-000), the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director will make the following decisions and determinations:
• Determine whether to amend the RMPs for the BLM Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District as proposed or as described in an alternative to the Proposed Action; and
• Respond to the Pacific Connector application with concurrence of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service by issuing a right-of-way grant, granting the right-of-way with conditions, or denying the application.
If the Forest Service adopts the new FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector pipeline project (in Docket No. PF12-17-000), the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest will make the following decisions and determinations:
• Decide whether to amend the LRMPs of the Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National Forests as proposed or as described in an alternative; and
• Determine the significance of the proposed amendments or alternatives in accordance with national forest planning regulation 36 CFR 219.10(f) (1982 procedures) using criteria in Forest Service Manual 1926.5.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Your comments should focus on the potential changes in the goods and services that are provided by affected BLM districts and National Forests, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen any adverse changes in the goods and services produced. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the plan amendment process. Preliminary issues for the plan amendments have been identified by BLM and Forest Service personnel, Federal, State, and local agencies, and other stakeholders. The issues include:
• Effects of proposed amendments on Survey and Manage species and their habitat;
• Effects of proposed amendments on contiguous existing or recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets within 0.5 mile of occupied marbled murrelet sites;
• Effects of proposed amendments on habitat in Known Owl Activity Centers, and
• Effects of the proposed amendments on Late Successional Reserves.
Preliminary BLM and Forest Service planning criteria include:
• Evaluation of significance of proposed amendments to Forest Service LRMPs in the context of LRMP goals and objectives. Whether a plan amendment is significant is guided by several factors, including the timing and duration of the proposed change, the location and size of the project, and how the proposed change could alter multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.
• Likelihood of persistence of affected Survey and Manage species within the range of the northern spotted owl.
• Amount and quality of marbled murrelet habitat affected by construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline project.
• Amount and quality of habitat in Known Owl Activity Centers affected by construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline project.
• Functionality of LSRs.
• Impacts on Connectivity and Diversity Blocks on BLM lands.
Decisions by the BLM and the Forest Service to amend land management plans are subject to administrative review. In accordance with 36 CFR 219.59, the Forest Service has elected to use the administrative review procedures (otherwise known as protest procedures) of the BLM. Administrative objections to Forest Service land management plan amendment decisions and protests of BLM land management plan amendment decisions may be filed under the provisions of 43 CFR 1610.5-2. The BLM's decision on the application for a right-of-way grant may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR part 4.
The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to object to the subsequent decision.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States office in Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the
Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The survey was requested by the Eastern States Jackson Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management.
The lands surveyed are:
The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the South Boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the surveys of a tract of land for the United States Coast Guard, and a tract of land for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in Section 32, and a tract of land for Volusia Country, in Sections 32 and 33, in Townships 16 and 17 South, Range 34 East, in the State of Florida, and was accepted August 24, 2012.
We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information.
If BLM receives a protest against the survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.
We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 17, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Motorola Mobility LLC of Libertyville, Illinois; Motorola Mobility Ireland of Bermuda; and Motorola Mobility International Limited of Bermuda. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on September 6, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,883,580 (“the '580 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 5,922,047 (“the '047 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,425,002 (“the '002 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,493,673 (“the '673 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,983,370 (“the '370 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,007,064 (“the '064 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,383,983 (“the '983 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, and 15 of the '580 patent; claims 17 and 18 of the '047 patent; claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 of the '002 patent; claims 1, 9-11, and 50 of the '673 patent; claims 50-52 and 54 of the '370 patent; claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-13 of the '064 patent; and claims 1-4, 9, 12-14, 25-26, 31, 33-35, 37, 39, and 40 of the '983 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge 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 limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against certain video game systems and wireless controllers and components thereof, imported by respondent Nintendo Co., Ltd., of Kyoto, Japan and Nintendo America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington (collectively, “Nintendo”).
Jia Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. 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 accessing its Internet server (
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:
unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.
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 August 31, 2012. Comments should address whether issuance of 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 limited exclusion order would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 10, 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-786”) 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 a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 17, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Hitachi Metals, Ltd. of Japan and Hitachi Metals North Carolina, Ltd. of China Grove, North Carolina. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on September 5, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain sintered rare earth magnets, methods of making same and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,461,565 (“the `565 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,491,765 (“the `765 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,527,874 (“the `874 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,537,385 (“the `385 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain sintered rare earth magnets, methods of making same and products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1-11 of the `565 patent; claims 1-4 and 11-16 of the `765 patent; claims 1-7 of the `874 patent; and claims 1-3 and 5-10 of the `385 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 17, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of BriarTek IP, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia. A supplement to the complaint was filed on September 6, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain two-way global satellite communication devices, system and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (“the `380 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain two-way global satellite communication devices, system and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 5, 10-12, and 34 of the `380 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors, 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. 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 accessing its Internet server (
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of VirnetX, Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation on September 14, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices with secure communications capabilities, components thereof, and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondent Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant 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 requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial 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 requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
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 docket number (“Docket No. 2913”) 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 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
National Institute of Justice, DOJ.
Notice of the Interview Room Recording System Standard and License Plate Reader Standard Workshops.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) are hosting two workshops in conjunction with the 119th Annual IACP Conference in San Diego CA. The focus of the workshops is the development of NIJ performance standards for Interview Room Recording Systems and License Plate Readers used by criminal justice agencies. Sessions are intended to inform manufacturers, test laboratories, certification bodies, and other interested parties of these standards development efforts. These workshops are being held specifically to discuss recent progress made toward the standards and to receive input, comments, and recommendations.
Space is limited at each workshop, and as a result, only 50 participants will be allowed to register for each session. We request that each organization limit their representatives to no more than two per organization. Exceptions to this limit may occur, should space allow. Participants planning to attend are responsible for their own travel arrangements.
Please access the following Web page to register for the Interview Room Video Systems workshop:
Please access the following Web page to register for the License Plate Reader workshop:
Both workshops will be held on Saturday, September 29, 2012. The Interview Room Recording System Standard session will take place from 10 to 11 a.m. The License Plate Reader Standard session will take place from 11 a.m. to noon.
For additional information, please contact Ian Hamilton at
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored Information Collection Request (ICR) titled, “Claims and Payment Activities,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before October 22, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Form ETA-5159 provides important program information on claims taking and benefit payment activities under Federal and State unemployment insurance laws. These data are needed for budget preparation and control, program planning and evaluation, personnel assignment, actuarial and program research, and for accounting to Congress and the public. This collection is authorized under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 503(a)(6) and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96 section 2165(a)(3).
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of September 3, 2012 through September 7, 2012.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of September 3, 2012 through September 7, 2012. These determinations are available on the Department's Web site
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 1, 2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 1, 2012.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
The initial investigation, initiated on August 17, 2011, resulted in a negative determination, issued on September 23, 2011, applicable to workers and former workers of Stream Global Services, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon. The determination was based on the Department's finding that the workers' firm did not produce an article, as required by the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the investigation was reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18, an application for administrative reconsideration was filed on February 22, 2012. On April 27, 2012, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Stream Global Services, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon.
During the administrative reconsideration investigation, the Department received additional information that clarified that the worker group is Stream Global Services, Inc., AdCenter, Beaverton, Oregon (subject firm). The Department also confirmed that the workers' firm is engaged in activities related to the supply of call center support services, which includes a range of mediums including electronic mails, telephone calls, and electronic “chat” functions. Specifically, the subject worker group includes workers involved in employment related to the supply of customer relationship management and business process outsourcing services. The subject worker group does not include on-site leased workers.
Based on information provided during the administrative reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that the worker group eligibility criteria set forth in TAAEA has been met.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated.
Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the workers' firm has shifted to a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with the customer relationship management and business process outsourcing services supplied by the workers, which contributed importantly to worker group separations at Stream Global Services, Inc., AdCenter, Beaverton, Oregon.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers of Stream Global Services, Inc., AdCenter, Beaverton, Oregon, who are/were engaged in employment related to the supply of call center support services, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Stream Global Services, Inc., AdCenter, Beaverton, Oregon, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 17, 2010, through two years from the date of certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter