Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Prune Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes and clarify existing policy provisions to better meet the needs of insured producers, and to reduce vulnerability to program fraud, waste, and abuse. The changes will apply for the 2013 and succeeding crop years.
This rule is effective October 26, 2012.
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO, 64141–6205, telephone (816) 926–7730.
This rule has been determined to be non-significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563–0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11, or 7 CFR part 400, subpart J for determinations of good farming practices, as applicable, must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
This rule finalizes changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457), Prune Crop Insurance Provisions that were published by FCIC on December 5, 2011, as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
A total of 31 comments were received from 2 commenters. The commenters were an insurance provider and an insurance service organization.
The public comments received regarding the proposed rule and FCIC's responses to the comments are as follows:
If the decision is made to retain this provision, it might help to clarify what time frame is meant by “* * * if a cause of loss * * * is evident prior to the time that you request the increase.” A cause of loss that occurred the previous crop year would be “prior to the time that you request the increase.” Consider rewriting something like: “Your request to increase the coverage level or price election percentage will not be accepted if a cause of loss that could or would reduce the yield of the insured crop is evident when your request is made.”
In addition to the changes described above, FCIC has made minor editorial changes.
Crop insurance, Prune, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2013 and succeeding crop years as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
3. * * *
(a) You may select only one price election for all the prunes in the county insured under this policy unless the Special Provisions provide different price elections by type, in which case you may select one price election for each type designated in the Special Provisions. The price elections you choose for each type must have the same percentage relationship to the maximum price offered by us for each type. For example, if you choose 100 percent of the maximum price election for one type, you must also choose 100 percent of the maximum price election for all other types.
(b) You must report, by the production reporting date designated in section 3 of the Basic Provisions, by type if applicable:
(4) * * *
(i) The age of the interplanted crop, and type, if applicable;
(c) We will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee, as necessary, based on our estimate of the effect of any such situation listed in section 3(b) that may occur. If you fail to notify us of any situation in section 3(b), we will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee at any time we become aware of the circumstance. If the situation in section 3(b) occurred:
(1) Before the beginning of the insurance period, the yield used to establish your production guarantee will be reduced for the current crop year regardless of whether the situation was due to an insured or uninsured cause of loss;
(2) After the beginning of the insurance period and you notify us by the production reporting date, the yield used to establish your production guarantee will be reduced for the current crop year only if the potential reduction in the yield used to establish your production guarantee is due to an uninsured cause of loss; or
(3) After the beginning of the insurance period and you fail to notify us by the production reporting date, an amount equal to the reduction in the yield will be added to the production to count calculated in section 11(c) due to uninsured causes when determining any indemnity. We may reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee for the subsequent crop year to reflect any reduction in the productive capacity of the trees.
6. * * *
(c) That are grown on trees that:
(1) Are listed as insurable types in the Special Provisions;
(2) Are grown on rootstock that is adapted to the area;
(3) Are irrigated (except where otherwise provided in the Special Provisions);
(4) Are grown in an orchard that, if inspected, is considered acceptable by us; and
(5) Have reached at least the seventh growing season after being set out.
8. * * *
(a) * * *
(1) For the year of application, coverage begins on March 1. For each subsequent crop year the policy remains continuously in force, coverage begins on the day immediately following the end of the insurance period for the prior crop year. Policy cancellation that results solely from transferring to a different insurance provider for a subsequent crop year will not be considered a break in continuous coverage.
9. Causes of Loss.
(a) * * *
(7) Insects, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of pest control measures; or
(8) Plant disease, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of disease control measures.
(b) In addition to the causes of loss excluded in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure against damage or loss of production due to inability to market the prunes for any reason other than actual physical damage from an insurable cause specified in this section. For example, we will not pay you an indemnity if you are unable to market due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of any person to accept production.
10. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss.
(a) In accordance with the requirements of section 14 of the Basic Provisions, you must leave representative samples in accordance with our procedures.
11. * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Multiplying the insured acreage for each type, if applicable, by its respective production guarantee;
(2) Multiplying the result of 11(b)(1) by the respective price election for each type, if applicable;
(3) Totaling the results of section 11(b)(2);
(4) Multiplying the total production to count (see section 11(c)), of each type, if applicable, by its respective price election;
(5) Totaling the results of section 11(b)(4);
(6) Subtracting the result of section 11(b)(5) from the result of section 11(b)(3); and
(7) Multiplying the result of section 11(b)(6) by your share.
You select 75 percent coverage level, 100 percent of the price election, and have a 100 percent share in 50.0 acres of type A prunes in the unit. The production guarantee is 2.5 tons per acre and your price election is $630.00 per ton. You harvest 10.0 tons. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
(1) 50.0 acres × 2.5 tons = 125.0-ton production guarantee;
(2) 125.0-ton guarantee × $630.00 price election = $78,750 value of production guarantee;
(4) 10.0 tons × $630.00 price election = $6,300 value of production to count;
(6) $78,750−$6,300 = $72,450 loss; and
(7) $72,450 × 1.000 share = $72,450 indemnity payment.
In addition to the information in the first example, you have an additional 50.0 acres of type B prunes with 100 percent share in the same unit. The production guarantee is 2.0 tons per acre and the price election is $550.00 per ton. You harvest 5.0 tons. Your total indemnity for both types A and B would be calculated as follows:
(1) 50.0 acres × 2.5 tons = 125.0-ton production guarantee for type A and 50.0 acres × 2.0 tons = 100.0-ton production guarantee for type B;
(2) 125.0-ton guarantee × $630.00 price election = $78,750 value of production guarantee for type A and 100.0-ton guarantee × $550.00 price election = $55,000 value production guarantee for type B;
(3) $78,750 + $55,000 = $133,750 total value of production guarantee;
(4) 10.0 tons × $630.00 price election = $6,300 value of production to count for type A and 5.0 tons × $550.00 price election = $2,750 value of production to count for type B;
(5) $6,300 + $2,750 = $9,050 total value of production to count;
(6) $133,750−$9,050 = $124,700 loss; and
(7) $124,700 loss × 1.000 share = $124,700 indemnity payment.
(c) The total production to count (in tons) from all insurable acreage on the unit will include:
(1) * * *
(iii) Unharvested production that meets the definition of standard prunes; and
(2) All harvested production from the insurable acreage that:
(i) Meets the definition of standard prunes;
(ii) Is intended for use as fresh fruit;
(iii) Is sold as standard prunes; or
(iv) Is damaged due to uninsured causes.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, us, we, or our) amends our regulations related to the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (Funding Corporation) System Audit Committee (SAC) and the Farm Credit System (System) annual report to investors. The final rule removes the provision for a two-thirds majority vote of the Funding Corporation board of directors to deny a request for resources by the SAC and requires the SAC to use resources to preserve and promote the safety and soundness of the System. The rule also requires quarterly reporting by the SAC to the Funding Corporation board and annual reporting to investors on resources used.
This regulation will be effective 30 days after publication in the
Deborah Wilson, Senior Accountant, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4414, TTY (703) 883–4434, or Laura McFarland, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883–4020.
The objectives of this final rule are to:
• Allow the SAC unrestricted access to resources to engage legal counsel, consultants and outside advisors; and
• Clarify that the SAC must have the agreement of the Funding Corporation board of directors in order to appoint, compensate, and retain the external auditor of the combined System-wide reports.
The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act),
In a May 2010 petition, the SAC requested that we amend § 630.6(a) to allow the SAC the unfettered ability to engage outside advisors, consultants and legal counsel in the performance of its duties. In a February 14, 2012, proposed rulemaking, we proposed:
• Removing the requirement that the Funding Corporation Board deny a SAC request for resources by a two-thirds majority vote of the full board;
• The SAC use resources in a manner that would not adversely affect the safety and soundness of the System; and
• Disclosure of resources used by, and the composition of, the SAC.
The 60-day comment period for the proposed rule closed on April 16, 2012.
We received comment letters on the proposed rule from each of the four Farm Credit banks, the Farm Credit Council (Council) on behalf of its membership, and a joint letter from the Funding Corporation and the SAC (joint letter). The Farm Credit banks and the Council expressed support for the comments made in the joint letter. We discuss the comments to our proposed rule and our responses below. Unless otherwise discussed in this preamble, those areas of the proposed rule not receiving comment are finalized as proposed.
All commenters supported removing the requirement that a two-thirds majority vote of the full Funding Corporation board of directors was needed to deny a SAC request for resources. Also, commenters supported the requirement that the SAC report at least quarterly to the Funding Corporation board on its use of resources.
Commenters expressed concern with the requirement that the SAC use Funding Corporation resources in a
Commenters stated that requiring the SAC to use Funding Corporation resources in a manner that would not adversely affect the safety and soundness of the System provision would create a standard that is stricter than that applied under governance best practices and should not be required. Some commenters expressed that holding the SAC to a stricter standard in the use of resources may hinder the Funding Corporation's ability to attract and retain SAC members, which could potentially damage the safety and soundness of the System. As the safety and soundness regulator of System institutions, including the Funding Corporation and its SAC, we expect all institutions to use resources according to law and regulations and in a safe and sound manner. We believe using resources accordingly and in such a manner should always be considered a best practice. Further, since the SAC is not composed solely of members of the board of directors as are other System institution audit committees,
Commenters stated the SAC cannot guarantee that the use of resources would lead directly to results that ensure the safety and soundness of the System. One commenter noted that the requirement may discourage the SAC from engaging outside third parties to assist with investigations or prevent the SAC from seeking their advice. The rule does not require the SAC use of resources guarantee the System's safety and soundness. Instead, the rule requires that the SAC not use Funding Corporation resources in a manner that would adversely affect the safety and soundness of the System or be contrary to law and regulation. We refer again to the example in which the SAC would use resources to uncover financial wrongdoing. The actual act of financial wrongdoing may adversely affect the safety and soundness of the System. The use of resources by the SAC to uncover and correct the wrongdoing may not be considered to have caused the adverse effect, but may help preserve and promote the safety and soundness of the System.
The joint letter asserted that the SAC is already bound by its fiduciary duties to act prudently. The joint letter stated that the Business Judgment Rule allows SAC members to rely on the advice of experts, but the safety and soundness provision would create a judicial and regulatory hindsight that the Business Judgment Rule was meant to deter. The commenter stated that this could potentially lead to a liability for SAC members.
The Business Judgment Rule provides a measure of liability protection to directors, officers, employees, and agents of a corporation when, in the course of decision-making, they place a reasonable reliance on expert advice. When applying the Business Judgment Rule, the courts consider whether the decision-making process involved careful consideration of reasonably available and relevant facts and whether the decision-maker honestly and reasonably believed that the decision was in the best interest of the institution. The safety and soundness of the System is in the best interest of the SAC and the Funding Corporation. We see nothing in the requirement to use Funding Corporation resources in a safe and sound manner that is contrary to the SAC's fiduciary duties or diminishes the protection offered the SAC under the “Business Judgment Rule.” As such, the argument that the provision hinders or otherwise contradicts the principals behind the Business Judgment Rule is not meritorious.
The SAC's use of Funding Corporation resources must have the intended purpose of preserving or promoting the safety and soundness of the System. We do not believe that it is more difficult for the SAC to carry out its responsibilities in a manner that does not adversely affect the System's safety and soundness than it is for other System institution audit committees. However, in consideration of the comments, we are modifying the language to clarify the requirement. The provision as finalized places a positive duty on the SAC to use resources in a lawful manner and to preserve and promote the safety and soundness of the System. This provision does not prevent the Funding Corporation board from developing its own policies and procedures to address the request for and use of resources by the SAC.
All commenters agreed with the proposed clarification that the SAC determines the appointment, compensation, and retention of the external auditor only with the agreement of the Funding Corporation board. However, commenters asked that the rule text make clear that this authority relates to the performance of the audit of the System-wide combined financial statements and not the audit fees related to the performance of the audit of the financial statements of individuals banks and associations. We do not believe any changes are needed to the language in § 630.6(a)(4)(ii). The rule clearly states that the appointment, compensation and retention of the external auditors relates solely to issuing the combined System-wide audit report and not the audit report of individual banks and associations. Our rule at § 620.30(d)(2) gives that authority to the audit committees of individual banks and associations. In addition, in a 2006 rulemaking, we made changes to our rules to limit the authority of the Funding Corporation, and by extension the SAC, to intervene in the activities of any bank or association's external auditor.
The joint letter requested that the rule not require Funding Corporation board concurrence for ordinary or recurring external auditor fees. We do not believe
We finalize the provisions of § 630.6(a)(4)(ii)(A) as proposed.
We proposed in § 630.20(n) that Funding Corporation resources used by the SAC be disclosed by category and amount in the annual System-wide report to investors if the total of each expense category for the reporting year was $5,000 or more. The proposed categories included, at a minimum, administrative expenses, contracted legal services, contracted consultants and advisors, and other contracted services performed on behalf of the SAC. We proposed excluding from this section disclosure of the fees paid to the external auditor for issuing System-wide audit reports. That disclosure is required by existing § 630.20(k)(2).
Commenters expressed concern with the additional disclosures proposed in § 630.20(n). Other commenters contended that the disclosure placed a higher standard on the SAC than what is required of entities registered with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) or as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley).
We believe disclosure of the use of Funding Corporation resources by the SAC provides transparency to System stockholders and investors and strengthens board and management accountability. Further, we believe removing the provision that a two-thirds majority vote of the full Funding Corporation board be required to deny an SAC request for resources necessitates an added level of accountability by the SAC.
We do not believe that disclosing the dollar amount of resources used to hire legal counsel, consultants and other categories of services would compromise confidentiality or attorney-client relations. The provision does not require the disclosure in the annual System-wide report to investors of the name of or service performed by legal counsel, advisors or outside consultants engaged by the SAC. Instead, the provision requires reporting the cost of and benefits to the System from the use of those resources. However, since disclosure of benefits derived from using those resources appears to be the source of commenters' concerns, and considering the safety and soundness constraints placed on the use of resources, we are finalizing the rule with the cost disclosure only and without the requirement to report the benefits of resources used. We expect the SAC to disclose information on the benefit from the use of resources to the Funding Corporation board.
One commenter requested that we limit the definition of external resources to “experts” engaged by the SAC and not include resources used by the SAC for off-site meeting facilities. The commenter stated that the use of these resources should instead be periodically reported to the Funding Corporation board. We respectfully disagree with the suggestion of limiting the disclosure on the SAC's use of resources to only “experts.” The Funding Corporation is required to provide both monetary and nonmonetary resources to the SAC and we proposed disclosures of those resources to ensure that investors are provided transparent and complete disclosure on the use of resources by the SAC. Further, we identified categories of resources based on use, including a disclosure category of “administrative expenses,” which may include either internal or external resources or both. Thus, if the SAC uses Funding Corporation resources for meeting sites, those expenses would be reported in the “administrative expense” category.
One commenter asserted that the $5,000 de minimis reporting threshold was too low and should be increased. We believe this threshold is reasonable given we are removing the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote of the full Funding Corporation board to deny an SAC request for resources. In addition, the threshold resembles other disclosure thresholds contained elsewhere in our rules. We are not increasing the reporting threshold in this final rule.
One commenter requested that we clarify the relationship of the proposed § 630.20(n) exemption from reporting external audit fees for issuance of System-wide audit reports with the existing requirement of § 630.20(k)(2), which requires the disclosure of fees. Existing § 630.20(k)(2) requires disclosure of fees paid to the external auditor during the reporting period for audit services, tax services, and non-audit services. Because § 630.20(k)(2) currently requires disclosure of these fees, we did not also propose requiring a similar disclosure requirement in § 630.20(n). We are revising the language in § 630.20(n) for clarity.
No comments were received on the proposed requirement to disclose in the annual System-wide report to investors the name, experience, and compensation of SAC members. Also, we received no comments on the categories of resources used by the SAC that were identified in the proposed rule and required to be disclosed. We finalize these provisions as proposed.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 630 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 4.2, 4.9, 5.9, 5.17, 5.19 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2153, 2160, 2243, 2252, 2254); sec. 424 of Pub. L. 100–233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1656; sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102–552, 106 Stat. 4102.
(a) * * *
(3)
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Determine, with the agreement of the Funding Corporation board of directors, the appointment, compensation, and retention of the external auditors issuing System-wide audit reports;
(n)
(1) List the names of the System Audit Committee members, including each member's term of office and principal occupation during the past 5 years. For each member, state the total cash and noncash compensation paid for services on the System Audit Committee during the reporting period.
(2) Disclose by category the monetary and nonmonetary resources used by the System Audit Committee during the reporting period. Discuss only those categories where the resources used within a category equaled or exceeded a total aggregate value of $5,000 during the reporting period. Fees paid for the audit of the System-wide financial statements, which are disclosed under paragraph (k)(2) of this section, are not included in any category under this paragraph. At a minimum, there must be separate categories for:
(i) Administrative expenses,
(ii) Contracted legal services,
(iii) Contracted consultants and advisors, and
(iv) Other contracted services, identifying the services.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations that modify equipment and operational requirements for freezer longliners (catcher/processors) named on License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses endorsed to catch and process Pacific cod at sea with hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). These regulations require vessel owners to select between two monitoring options: carry two observers so that all catch can be sampled, or carry one observer and use a motion-compensated scale to weigh Pacific cod before it is processed. The selected monitoring option is required to be used when the vessel is operating in either the BSAI or Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or while the vessel is fishing for groundfish under the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. A vessel owner who notifies NMFS that the vessel will not be used to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI or to conduct groundfish CDQ fishing at any time during a particular year will not be required to select one of the monitoring options and will continue to follow observer coverage and catch reporting requirements that apply to catcher/processors not subject to this action. These regulatory amendments address the need for enhanced catch accounting, monitoring, and enforcement created by the formation of a voluntary cooperative by the BSAI longline catcher/processor subsector in 2010, and are necessary to improve the precision of the accounting for allocated quota species. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws.
Effective October 26, 2012.
Electronic copies of the proposed rule, the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) for this action may be obtained from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; and by email to
Jennifer Watson, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the exclusive economic zone off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). The FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and approved by the Secretary of Commerce under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
This action modifies the equipment and operational requirements for catcher/processor vessels (C/Ps) named on License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses with a Pacific cod catcher/processor hook-and-line endorsement for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, or both Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. These vessels are commonly known as “freezer longliners.” They also are defined as the “longline catcher processor subsector” in the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108–447). In 2011, 33 vessels actively fished under the 37 LLP licenses that met the criteria for the longline C/P subsector. A description of LLP license requirements, management of the longline C/P subsector, and the development of monitoring and enforcement regulations applicable to the longline C/P subsector is described in more detail in the preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 35925, June 15, 2012) and is not repeated here.
NMFS requires new monitoring and enforcement provisions applicable to vessels participating in the BSAI longline C/P subsector as a result of several pieces of legislation passed by Congress and recent changes to fishery management regulations, including (1) legislation that created a defined class of participants in the BSAI longline C/P subsector—the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108–447), (2) regulatory amendments allocating a specific quantity of Pacific cod resources in the BSAI to the defined class of longline C/P subsector participants—detailed in the final rule implementing Amendment 85 to the BSAI FMP (74 FR 56728, November 3, 2009), and (3) legislation that allows BSAI longline C/P subsector participants to receive exclusive catch privileges—the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Fishery Cooperative Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–335). In combination, these changes created the opportunity for the longline C/P subsector to form a voluntary fishing cooperative.
Under the voluntary cooperative, members in the longline C/P subsector allocate a proportion of the available Pacific cod resources among their members based on private contractual arrangements. The voluntary cooperative operates as a
Catch share programs create new demands for enhanced catch accounting, monitoring, and enforcement. They increase incentives for participants to misreport catch through unauthorized discards or inaccurate catch reports. If catch can be successfully misreported or underreported, the fishing season continues longer than it should, and the vessel owners and operators are able to catch more Pacific cod than are allocated to the subsector. The fact that the vessel owners and operators are fishing under a cooperative contract to maximize the harvest and value of the Pacific cod allocation for a given halibut PSC limit provides additional opportunities for them to communicate and cooperate to underreport catch.
The voluntary cooperative and the CDQ Program present NMFS with similar monitoring and enforcement challenges. Therefore, this action applies the same requirements to longline C/Ps operating in both the CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries. Maintaining the same monitoring measures ensures consistent methods of catch accounting, avoids confusion for observers, and reduces the risk of data processing or catch accounting errors that may occur if monitoring provisions change onboard a vessel while fishing. Additional detail on the need for enhanced monitoring requirements for catch share programs and management of the CDQ Program is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 35925, June 15, 2012) and not repeated here.
The proposed rule for this action was published in the
This action affects vessels in the longline C/P subsector when those vessels (1) operate in either the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or (2) while the vessel is participating in the CDQ fisheries (“groundfish CDQ fishing”). Members of the subsector who do not intend to fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI or to conduct groundfish CDQ fishing during the upcoming calendar year may notify NMFS (“opt out”) and will not be subject to the enhanced monitoring requirements in that calendar year.
Members of the subsector who intend to fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI or to conduct groundfish CDQ fishing in the upcoming calendar year will be required to select one of two monitoring options: carry two observers so that all catch can be sampled, or carry one observer and use a motion-compensated scale to weigh Pacific cod before it is processed. NMFS has examined both options and determined that either option will improve catch accounting on the freezer longliners and provide the data needed to properly manage the Pacific cod and groundfish CDQ fisheries. Vessel owners will be required to select an option prior to November 1 for the upcoming calendar year. Once the selection is made, it will apply for the entire year and the vessel owner will not be able to change it during the year for which it was made.
Under the increased observer coverage monitoring option, the vessel owner and operator will be required to carry two observers and provide an observer sampling station meeting location and space requirements. The vessel operator will be required to use an electronic logbook to report catch at all times during that year. One of the two observers must have a lead level 2 certification. The observers must have the opportunity to sample all sets. A lead level 2 observer must meet minimum time-at-sea requirements. The level 2 requirement ensures that observers have experience at sea; the “lead” requirement ensures that they have had experience with longline or pot gear and that, having taken at least two cruises, they have experience with various fixed-gear operations. Because the data collected by observers is directly used to debit quota accounts, the observer estimates are carefully reviewed and scrutinized by catch share participants. NMFS has found that observers with prior experience with a specific gear type are more likely to collect usable data for quota management.
Under the scales monitoring option, the vessel owner and operator will be required to use a NMFS-approved scale to weigh all Pacific cod, provide and maintain a NMFS-approved electronic monitoring system to monitor sorting and weighing of Pacific cod, carry one lead level 2 observer, and provide an observer sampling station meeting location and space requirements. Each set must be weighed and recorded separately. NMFS will use the weight of all catch that passes over the scale to account for Pacific cod catch. The vessel operator will be required to use an
This action also reduces the experience requirements for lead level 2 observers to address concerns raised by the observer providers about a potential shortage of observers as a result of this action. Reducing the experience requirements will increase the pool of qualified lead level 2 observers. The number of sampled sets required for lead level 2 qualification is reduced from 60 sampled sets to 30 sampled sets.
Finally, this action removes the allowance for an “alternative fishing plan” under the CDQ Program. Because this action will standardize the monitoring options for longline C/Ps in both the CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries, the alternative fishing plan regulations are no longer necessary.
NMFS received 3 letters of comment from fishing organizations and 2 letters of comment from the general public addressing 13 distinct topics related to the proposed rule. A summary of the relevant comments and NMFS' responses, follows. No changes were made to the proposed rule as a result of these comments.
Section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (see
Methods exist to obtain, train, and retain the needed lead level 2 observers as explained in section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (see
The observer employment market will play a crucial role in ensuring that enough lead level 2 observers are created and mobilized to meet the quantity demanded. Based on the analysis prepared for this action, NMFS anticipates that there will be enough lead level 2 observers to meet the requirements of this monitoring program.
NMFS agrees that the freezer longline fleet's observer usage may change from year to year as the TAC changes, or from vessel to vessel depending on the distribution of allocations within the voluntary cooperative. However, in its analysis of the anticipated future demand for observers, NMFS made projections assuming a fleet of the current size fishing for an entire year. This assumption is conservative, because some vessels do not fish the entire year to accommodate changes in crews, maintenance, and product offloads.
The modifications to revise the number of sets per day and the total number of days fished did not change the result of NMFS's analysis of the availability of lead level 2 observers. Therefore, no change in the regulations was made based on this comment.
NMFS cannot delay the implementation of the lead level 2 requirement without delaying all the monitoring requirements in this program. The lead level 2 requirement is an essential component to the suite of monitoring tools created to manage the voluntary cooperative. Without this component the monitoring program will not function as intended. NMFS must implement these monitoring measures as soon as practicable because this fleet has already formed a voluntary cooperative and to achieve the objectives identified in the purpose and need statement.
NMFS will continue to monitor the number of observers that become lead level 2 qualified in the fixed gear fleet in the partial coverage category of the restructured observer program. NMFS could reconsider the monitoring requirements for the freezer longline fleet if there is a future shortage of lead level 2 observers. Any modification to the monitoring provisions in this rule would require a new analysis and rule making. The current best information available to NMFS does not support changes to the proposed rule.
However, NMFS believes that, in general, wages are an important motivator for work effort. Increased wages are likely to motivate existing lead level 2 observers to work longer seasons, encourage existing observers within the Alaska Region to become fixed gear lead level 2 observers, and to draw qualified biologists, including observers from other regions, into the pool of North Pacific fixed gear lead level 2 observers. Increased wages for observer providers will also be necessary to encourage providers to incur the costs required in nurturing new lead level 2 observers. NMFS acknowledges that paying higher wages to lead level 2 observers will reduce the economic benefits freezer longline operators obtain from their cooperative fishing arrangements.
As discussed in section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (see
• Catch share programs create new incentives for operators to circumvent management measures. These incentives can be addressed in part by deploying experienced observers with specialized experience with the gear being deployed. In recent years, observer reports of harassment and intimidation in the freezer longline sector have increased. NMFS believes that, at least partly as a response to the new cooperative arrangements, vessel owners and operators are becoming more interested in haul-by-haul observer data in the freezer longline sector. As a result, some vessel operators are pressuring observers to change sample numbers, sample more, sample less, or sample differently. Experienced observers are more likely to identify vessel operator and crew actions that lead to sampling of unrepresentative sets, be more confident in their sampling decisions, and withstand pressure, particularly when only one observer may be on board.
• Performances issues with new observers can impact NMFS' monitoring of scale performance; of halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) and viability; and of all discard estimates, including Pacific cod. Experienced observers are familiar with different vessel layouts and operations. They can adapt quickly to vessel-specific conditions when assigned to a new freezer longliner. New observers or observers with little experience on fixed gear vessels need extra time to develop the best sampling techniques for that specific vessel. Lack of experience results in unsampled sets or lower data quality. Observers with experience aboard a fixed gear vessel should be able to quickly familiarize themselves with a new vessel and establish an unbiased sampling protocol.
• The scales option requires that only Pacific cod be weighed on the flow scale. Flow scales will be new to freezer longliners and NMFS believes that the sole observer must be a lead level 2 in order to detect and minimize problems that could occur. An observer with this level of experience should have the skills necessary to solve sampling and data collection problems in this new monitoring program. An observer unfamiliar with fixed gear operations will have difficulty determining if the scale is being used correctly. An experienced observer can address scale performance issues with the responsible vessel representatives prior to disembarking the vessel.
As noted in the responses to comments 7 and 10, NMFS the decision to require a lead level 2 observer is not related to requirements in other rationalized fisheries. NMFS acknowledges that the experience gained from these other fisheries has demonstrated the need for lead level 2 observers to address incentives to misreport catch. NMFS determined that requiring observers that have the most experience and knowledge of fishing operations aboard fixed gear vessels was essential to ensure this new and unique program functions as anticipated.
No changes to the regulations were made based on public comment. However, NMFS has identified two minor issues that require revisions to the proposed rule. First, this final rule does not include the proposed rule revisions to §§ 679.51, 679.53, and 679.32(c)(3)(i)(E)(
Second, this final rule corrects an error made in § 679.32(c)(3)(i)(F)(
Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the PRA requires that agencies inventory and display a current control number assigned by the Director, OMB, for each agency information collection. Section 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which OMB approval numbers have been issued. Because this final rule adds a collection-of-information for recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to reference correctly the new sections resulting from this final rule.
Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the correction to § 679.32(c)(3)(i)(F)(
This final 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 during the proposed rule stage that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The collection-of-information requirements are presented below by OMB control number.
The reporting requirements for the C/P longline or pot gear daily cumulative logbook (DCPL) are removed for certain C/Ps with this final rule; the electronic logbook (see OMB 0648–0515) is used in place of the DCPL by freezer longliners (C/Ps) named on LLP licenses endorsed to catch and process Pacific cod at sea with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI.
The Observer Program requirements are mentioned in this final rule; however, the public reporting burden for this collection-of-information is not directly affected by this final rule.
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 30 minutes for Pacific Cod Monitoring Option or Opt-out Notification Form; 2 hours for Inspection Request for an Electronic Monitoring System; 6 minutes for At-Sea Scales Inspection Request; 2 minutes for notification to observers of at-sea scale tests; 45 minutes for Record of Daily Flow Scale Test; 1 minute for printed output from at-sea scale; and 2 hours for Observer Sampling Station Inspection Request.
LLP license requirements are mentioned in this final rule; however, the public reporting burden for this collection-of-information is not directly affected by this final rule.
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes for eLogbook registration and 41 minutes per active response and 5 minutes per inactive response for the C/P longline and pot gear eLogbook.
These reporting burden estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR Chapter IX and 50 CFR Chapter VI as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
(b) * * *
16 U.S.C. 773
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(viii)
(c) * * *
(1) For vessel owners and operators subject to § 679.100(a), to use the vessel as a catcher/processor to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI or to conduct groundfish CDQ fishing.
(k)
(1) In order to be approved by NMFS, the vessel owner and operator must provide an electronic monitoring system that include cameras, a monitor, and a digital video recorder that must—
(i) Provide sufficient resolution and field of view to monitor all areas where Pacific cod are sorted from the catch, all fish passing over the motion-compensated scale, and all crew actions in these areas.
(ii) Have sufficient data storage capacity to record all video data from an entire trip. Each frame of stored video data must record a time/date stamp in Alaska local time (A.l.t.).
(iii) Include at least one external USB (1.1 or 2.0) port or other removable storage device approved by NMFS.
(iv) Use commercially available software.
(v) Use color cameras, with a minimum of 470 TV lines of resolution, auto-iris capabilities, and output color video to the recording device with the ability to revert to black and white video output when light levels become too low for color recognition.
(vi) Record at a speed of no less than 5 frames per second at all times when Pacific cod are being sorted or weighed.
(2) NMFS staff, or any individual authorized by NMFS, must be able to view any footage from any point in the trip using a 16-bit or better color monitor that can display all cameras simultaneously and must be assisted by crew knowledgeable in the operation of the system.
(3) The vessel owner and operator must maintain the video data and make the data available to NMFS staff or any individual authorized by NMFS, upon request. The data must be retained onboard the vessel for no less than 120 days after the date the video is recorded, unless NMFS has notified the vessel owner in writing that the video data may be retained for less than this 120-day period.
(4) The vessel owner or operator must arrange for NMFS to inspect the electronic monitoring system and maintain a current NMFS-issued electronic monitoring system inspection report onboard the vessel at all times when the vessel is required to provide an approved electronic monitoring system.
(5) The vessel owner or operator must submit an Inspection Request for an Electronic Monitoring System to NMFS with all information fields accurately filled in. The application form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (
(6)
(ii) Any additional information requested by the Regional Administrator.
(7) Any change to the electronic monitoring system that would affect the system's functionality or ability to meet the requirements described at paragraph (k)(1) of this section must be submitted to, and approved by, NMFS in writing before that change is made.
(8) Inspections will be conducted on vessels tied to docks at Dutch Harbor, Alaska; Kodiak, Alaska; and in the Puget Sound area of Washington State.
(9) After an inspection, NMFS will issue an electronic monitoring system inspection report to the vessel owner, if the electronic monitoring system meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section. The electronic monitoring system report is valid for 12 months from the date it is issued by NMFS. The electronic monitoring system inspection report must be made available to the observer, NMFS personnel, or to an authorized officer upon request.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) * * *
(
(c) * * *
(1) Unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section, observer coverage is required as follows:
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(E) * * *
(
The owner and operator of a vessel named on an LLP license with a Pacific cod catcher-processor hook-and-line endorsement for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands or both the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands must comply with the requirements of this subpart.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) The vessel is in compliance with observer coverage requirements described at § 679.50(c)(8)(i).
(ii) The time required for an observer to complete sampling, data recording, and data communication duties may not exceed 12 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period.
(iii) An observer sampling station meeting the requirements at § 679.28(d) is available at all times, unless otherwise approved by NMFS.
(iv) All sets are made available for sampling by an observer.
(2)
(i) The vessel owner and operator must ensure that—
(A) The vessel is in compliance with observer coverage requirements described at § 679.50(c)(8)(ii).
(B) All Pacific cod brought onboard the vessel is weighed on a NMFS-approved scale in compliance with the scale requirements at § 679.28(b), and that each set is weighed and recorded separately.
(C) An observer sampling station meeting the requirements at § 679.28(d) is available at all times, unless otherwise approved by NMFS.
(D) The vessel is in compliance with the electronic monitoring requirements described at § 679.28(k).
(ii) NMFS will use the weight of all catch that passes over the scale for the purposes of accounting for Pacific cod catch.
(iii) At the time NMFS approves the scale used to weigh Pacific cod, NMFS will provide the vessel owner or operator with one of the following designations on the scale inspection report that will be used for catch accounting of Pacific cod for the duration of the approval period:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(c)
(d) During 2013, the vessel owner that has selected the increased observer coverage option under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may make a one-time change to the scales option as described under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The owner must submit a completed notification form no later than May 1 to change monitoring options. The change in monitoring options will become effective June 10 and will remain effective until December 31.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; extension.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is amending interim final temporary Rule 15Ba2–6T, which provides for the temporary registration of municipal advisors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), to extend the date on which Rule 15Ba2–6T (and consequently Form MA–T) will sunset from September 30, 2012, to September 30, 2013. Under the amendment, all temporary registrations submitted pursuant to Rule 15Ba2–6T also will expire no later than September 30, 2013.
Molly Kim, Senior Special Counsel, Office of Market Supervision, at (202) 551–5644; Yue Ding, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Market Supervision, at (202) 551–5842; Mary N. Simpkins, Senior Special Counsel, Office of Municipal Securities, at (202) 551–5683; Dave Sanchez, Attorney Fellow, Office of
The Commission is extending the expiration date for interim final temporary Rule 15Ba2–6T and Form MA–T under the Exchange Act.
Section 15B(a)(1) of the Exchange Act,
The registration requirement for municipal advisors became effective on October 1, 2010. On September 1, 2010, the Commission adopted interim final temporary Rule 15Ba2–6T under the Exchange Act,
Under Rule 15Ba2–6T, as initially adopted, all temporary registrations submitted pursuant to that rule would have expired on the earlier of: (1) The date that the municipal advisor's registration is approved or disapproved by the Commission pursuant to a final rule adopted by the Commission establishing another manner of registration of municipal advisors and prescribing a form for such purpose;
As stated in the Interim Release and the Extension Release, the Commission believes that providing a temporary registration process for municipal advisors, pursuant to an interim final temporary rule, is necessary and appropriate, is consistent with the intent of Congress in enacting Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and can provide investors and municipal entities with basic and important information while the Commission considers a permanent registration program.
The extension will provide a method for municipal advisors to continue to temporarily satisfy the registration requirement under Section 15B of the Exchange Act until the Commission promulgates a final rule that establishes another manner of registration of municipal advisors, prescribes a form for such purpose, and develops an electronic registration system. The extension will prevent a gap between the time at which the temporary rule expires and at which municipal advisors must be registered with the Commission under a permanent registration regime. The Commission notes that it is adopting the amendment to Rule 15Ba2–6T only to extend the expiration date of that rule and, consequently, the expiration date of Form MA–T. The Commission is not making any other amendments to Rule 15Ba2–6T or Form MA–T.
The Commission is amending Rule 15Ba2–6T(e) to provide that all temporary registrations submitted pursuant to Rule 15Ba2–6T will expire on the earlier of: (1) The date that the municipal advisor's registration is approved or disapproved by the Commission pursuant to a final rule adopted by the Commission establishing another manner of registration of municipal advisors and prescribing a form for such purpose; (2) the date on which the municipal advisor's temporary registration is rescinded by the Commission; or (3) on September 30, 2013. The Commission is also amending Rule 15Ba2–6T(f) to provide that the interim final temporary rule will expire on September 30, 2013. Thus, absent further action by the Commission, Rule 15Ba2–6T and Form MA–T will expire on September 30, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.
As previously noted in the Extension Release, the Commission has considered the seven comment letters received on the Interim Release and, given the limited nature of this extension and the Commission's ongoing process of considering permanent rules for the registration of municipal advisors, the Commission is not making any other changes to Rule 15Ba2–6T and Form
The amendments to Rule 15Ba2–6T will be effective on September 30, 2012. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the
The APA also generally requires that an agency publish a substantive rule in the
In connection with the adoption of Rule 15Ba2–6T and Form MA–T, the Commission submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for approval of the “collection of information” requirements contained in the temporary rule and form in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits of its rules. The Commission has previously considered and discussed the costs and benefits of Rule 15Ba2–6T and Form MA–T.
Since the Commission is only extending the expiration date for Rule 15Ba2–6T and Form MA–T and is not substantively changing them, the Commission's estimated burden for each municipal advisor to complete and amend Form MA–T remains unchanged.
Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, whenever it engages in rulemaking and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
In the Interim Release, the Commission considered the effects of Rule 15Ba2–6T and Form MA–T on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Pursuant to the Exchange Act, and particularly Section 15B (15 U.S.C. 78
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Municipal advisors, Temporary registration requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows.
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c–3, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78
15 U.S.C. 78a
The form shall be used for temporary registration as a municipal advisor, and for amendments to, and withdrawals from, temporary registration pursuant to Section 15B of the Exchange Act, (15 U.S.C. 78
[
By the Commission.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Interim regulations; solicitation of comments.
This rule amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations on an interim basis to implement the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement entered into by the United States and the Republic of Colombia.
Interim rule effective September 26, 2012; comments must be received by November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods:
•
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the interim rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this interim rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP in developing these regulations will reference a specific portion of the interim rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. See
On November 22, 2006, the United States and Colombia (the “Parties”) signed the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (“CTPA” or “Agreement”), and on June 28, 2007, the Parties signed a protocol amending the Agreement. The CTPA provides for reciprocal trade liberalization between the United States and Colombia. It is a comprehensive, trade opening agreement that will eliminate tariffs and other barriers to trade, open each county's market for service providers, and promote investment.
On October 21, 2011, the President signed into law the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”), Public Law 112–42, 125 Stat. 462 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note), which approved and made statutory changes to implement the CTPA. Section 103 of the Act requires that regulations be prescribed as necessary to implement the provisions of the CTPA.
On May 14, 2012, the President signed Proclamation 8818 to implement the CTPA. The Proclamation, which was published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is responsible for administering the provisions of the CTPA and the Act that relate to the importation of goods into the United States from Colombia. Those customs-related CTPA provisions, which require implementation through regulation, include certain tariff and non-tariff provisions within Chapter One (Initial Provisions and General Definitions), Chapter Two (National Treatment and Market Access for Goods), Chapter Three (Textiles and Apparel), Chapter Four (Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures), and Chapter Five (Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation).
Certain general definitions set forth in Chapter One of the CTPA have been incorporated into the CTPA implementing regulations. These regulations also implement Article 2.6 (Goods Re-entered After Repair or Alteration) of the CTPA.
Chapter Three of the CTPA sets forth provisions relating to trade in textile and apparel goods between Colombia and the United States. The provisions within Chapter Three that require regulatory action by CBP are Articles 3.2 (Customs Cooperation and Verification of Origin), Article 3.3 (Rules of Origin, Origin Procedures, and Related Matters), and Article 3.5 (Definitions).
Chapter Four of the CTPA sets forth the rules for determining whether an imported good is an originating good of a Party and, as such, is therefore eligible for preferential tariff (duty-free or reduced duty) treatment under the CTPA as specified in the Agreement and the HTSUS. The basic rules of origin in Section A of Chapter Four are set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS.
Under Article 4.1 of Chapter Four and section 203(b) of the Act, originating goods may be grouped in three broad categories: (1) Goods that are wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties; (2) goods that are produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties and that satisfy the product-specific rules of origin in CTPA Annex 4.1 (Specific Rules of Origin; change in tariff classification requirement and/or regional value content requirement) or Annex 3–A (Textile and Apparel Specific Rules of Origin) and all other applicable requirements of Chapter Four; and (3) goods that are produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties exclusively from originating materials. Article 4.2 (section 203(c) of the Act) sets forth the methods for calculating the regional value content of a good. Articles 4.3 and 4.4 (section 203(d) of the Act) set forth the rules for determining the value of materials for purposes of calculating the regional value content of a good. Article 4.5 (section 203(e) of the Act) provides that production that takes place in the territory of one or both of the Parties may be accumulated such that, provided other requirements are met, the resulting good is considered originating. Article 4.6 (section 203(f) of the Act) provides a
Section B of Chapter Four sets forth procedures that apply under the CTPA in regard to claims for preferential tariff treatment. Specifically, Section B includes provisions concerning: claims for preferential tariff treatment (Article 4.15); exceptions to the certification requirement (Article 4.16); recordkeeping requirements (Article 4.17); verification of preference claims (Article 4.18); obligations relating to importations (Article 4.19) and exportations (Article 4.20); common guidelines (Article 4.21); implementation (Article 4.22); and definitions of terms used within the context of the rules of origin (Article 4.23). All Articles within Section B, except for Articles 4.21 (Common Guidelines) and 4.22 (Implementation) are reflected in these implementing regulations.
Chapter Five sets forth operational provisions related to customs administration and trade facilitation under the CTPA. Article 5.9 (section 205 of the Act), concerning the general application of penalties to CTPA transactions, is the only provision within Chapter Five that is reflected in the CTPA implementing regulations.
The majority of the CTPA implementing regulations set forth in this document have been included within Subpart T in Part 10 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR Part 10). However, in those cases in which CTPA implementation is more appropriate in the context of an existing regulatory provision, the CTPA regulatory text has been incorporated in an existing Part within the CBP regulations. In addition, this document sets forth several cross-references and other consequential changes to existing regulatory provisions to clarify the relationship between those existing provisions and the new CTPA implementing regulations. The regulatory changes are discussed below in the order in which they appear in this document.
Section 10.31(f) concerns temporary importations under bond. It is amended by adding references to certain goods originating in Colombia for which, as in the case of goods originating in Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Bahrain, Oman, Peru, or Korea, no bond or other security will be required when imported temporarily for prescribed uses. The provisions of CTPA Article 2.5 (Temporary Admission of Goods) are already reflected in existing temporary importation bond or other provisions contained in Part 10 of the CBP regulations and in Chapter 98 of the HTSUS.
Section 10.3001 outlines the scope of Subpart T, Part 10 of the CBP regulations. This section also clarifies that, except where the context otherwise requires, the requirements contained in Subpart T, Part 10, are in addition to general administrative and enforcement provisions set forth elsewhere in the CBP regulations. Thus, for example, the specific merchandise entry requirements contained in Subpart T, Part 10 are in addition to the basic entry requirements contained in Parts 141–143 of the CBP regulations.
Section 10.3002 sets forth definitions of common terms used within Subpart T, Part 10. Although the majority of the definitions in this section are based on definitions contained in Article 1.3 and Annex 1.3 of the CTPA, and section 3 of the Act, other definitions have also been included to clarify the application of the regulatory texts. Additional definitions that apply in a more limited Subpart T, Part 10, context are set forth elsewhere with the substantive provisions to which they relate.
Section 10.3003 sets forth the procedure for claiming CTPA preferential tariff treatment at the time of entry and, as provided in CTPA Article 4.15.1, states that an importer may make a claim for CTPA preferential tariff treatment based on a certification by the importer, exporter, or producer or the importer's knowledge that the good is an originating good. Section 10.3003 also provides, consistent with CTPA Article 4.19.4(d), that when an importer has reason to believe that a claim is based on inaccurate information, the importer must correct the claim and pay any duties that may be due.
Section 10.3004, which is based on CTPA Articles 4.15 and 4.19.4, requires a U.S. importer, upon request, to submit a copy of the certification of the importer, exporter, or producer if the certification forms the basis for the claim. Section 10.3004 specifies the information that must be included on the certification, sets forth the circumstances under which the certification may be prepared by the exporter or producer of the good, and provides that the certification may be used either for a single importation or for multiple importations of identical goods.
Section 10.3005 sets forth certain importer obligations regarding the truthfulness of information and documents submitted in support of a claim for preferential tariff treatment. Section 10.3006, which is based on CTPA Article 4.16, provides that the certification is not required for certain non-commercial or low-value importations.
Section 10.3007 implements CTPA Article 4.17 concerning the maintenance of relevant records regarding the imported good.
Section 10.3008, which reflects CTPA Article 4.19.2, authorizes the denial of CTPA tariff benefits if the importer fails to comply with any of the requirements under Subpart T, Part 10, CBP regulations.
Section 10.3009, which implements CTPA Articles 4.20.1 and 4.17.1, sets forth certain obligations of a person who completes and issues a certification for a good exported from the United States to Colombia. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 10.3009, reflecting CTPA Article 4.20.1, require a person who completes such a certification to provide a copy of the certification to CBP upon request and to give prompt notification of any errors in the certification to every person to whom the certification was given. Paragraph (c) of § 10.3009 reflects Article 4.17.1, concerning the recordkeeping requirements that apply to a person who completes and issues a certification for a good exported from the United States to Colombia.
Sections 10.3010 through 10.3012 implement CTPA Article 4.19.5 and section 206 of the Act, which allow an importer who did not claim CTPA tariff benefits on a qualifying good at the time of importation to apply for a refund of any excess duties at any time within one year after the date of importation. Such a claim may be made even if liquidation of the entry would otherwise be considered final under other provisions of law.
Sections 10.3013 through 10.3025 provide the implementing regulations regarding the rules of origin provisions of General Note 34, HTSUS, Chapter Four and Article 3.3 of the CTPA, and section 203 of the Act.
Section 10.3013 sets forth terms that are defined for purposes of the rules of origin as found in section 203(n) of the Act.
Section 10.3014 sets forth the basic rules of origin established in Article 4.1 of the CTPA, section 203(b) of the Act, and General Note 34, HTSUS. The provisions of § 10.3014 apply both to the determination of the status of an imported good as an originating good for purposes of preferential tariff treatment and to the determination of the status of a material as an originating material used in a good which is subject to a determination under General Note 34, HTSUS.
Section 10.3014(a), reflecting section 203(b)(1) of the Act, specifies those goods that are originating goods because they are wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties.
Section 10.3014(b), reflecting section 203(b)(2) of the Act, provides that goods that have been produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties from non-originating materials, each of which undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification and satisfies any applicable regional value content or other requirement set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS, are originating goods. Essential to the rules in § 10.3014(b) are the specific rules of General Note 34, HTSUS, which are incorporated by reference.
Section 10.3014(c), reflecting section 203(b)(3) of the Act, provides that goods that have been produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties exclusively from originating materials are originating goods.
Section 10.3015 reflects CTPA Article 4.2 and section 203(c) of the Act concerning the basic rules that apply for purposes of determining whether an imported good satisfies a minimum regional value content (“RVC”) requirement. Section 10.3016, reflecting CTPA Articles 4.3, 4.4 and section 203(d) of the Act, sets forth the rules for determining the value of a material for purposes of calculating the regional value content of a good as well as for purposes of applying the
Section 10.3017, which is derived from CTPA Article 4.5 and section 203(e) of the Act, sets forth the rule by which originating materials from the territory of a Party that are used in the production of a good in the territory of the other Party will be considered to originate in the territory of that other country. In addition, this section also establishes that a good that is produced by one or more producers in the territory of one or both of the Parties is an originating good if the good satisfies all of the applicable requirements of the rules of origin of the CTPA.
Section 10.3018, as provided for in CTPA Article 4.6 and section 203(f) of the Act, sets forth
Section 10.3019, as provided for in CTPA Article 4.7 and section 203(g) of the Act, sets forth the rules by which “fungible” goods or materials may be claimed as originating.
Section 10.3020, as provided for in CTPA Article 4.8 and section 203(h) of the Act, specifies the conditions under which a good's standard accessories, spare parts, or tools are: (1) Treated as originating goods; and (2) disregarded in determining whether all non-originating materials undergo an applicable change in tariff classification under General Note 34, HTSUS.
Section 10.3021, as provided for in CTPA Articles 3.3.10 and 4.9 and section 203(m) of the Act, provides that, notwithstanding the specific rules of General Note 34, HTSUS, goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3, HTSUS, will not qualify as originating goods unless: (1) Each of the goods in the set is an originating good; or (2) the total value of the non-originating goods in the set does not exceed 15 percent of the adjusted value of the set, or 10 percent of the adjusted value of the set in the case of textile or apparel goods.
Sections 10.3022 and 10.3023, as provided for in CTPA Articles 4.10 and 4.11 and sections 203(i) and (j) of the Act, respectively, provide that retail packaging materials and packing materials for shipment are to be disregarded with respect to their actual origin in determining whether non-originating materials undergo an applicable change in tariff classification under General Note 34, HTSUS. These sections also set forth the treatment of packaging and packing materials for purposes of the regional value content requirement of the note.
Section 10.3024, as provided for in CTPA Article 4.12 and section 203(k) of the Act, provides that indirect materials, as defined in § 10.3013(h), are considered to be originating materials without regard to where they are produced.
Section 10.3025, as provided for in CTPA Article 4.13 and section 203(l) of the Act, sets forth the rule that an originating good loses its originating status and is treated as a non-originating good if, subsequent to production in the territory of one or both of the Parties that qualifies the good as originating, the good: (1) Undergoes production outside the territories of the Parties, other than certain specified minor operations; or (2) does not remain under the control of customs authorities in the territory of a non-Party.
Section 10.3026 implements CTPA Article 4.18 which concerns the conduct of verifications to determine whether imported goods are originating goods entitled to CTPA preferential tariff treatment. This section also governs the conduct of verifications directed to producers of materials that are used in the production of a good for which CTPA preferential duty treatment is claimed.
Section 10.3027, as provided for in CTPA Article 3.2 and section 208 of the Act, sets forth the verification and enforcement procedures specifically relating to trade in textile and apparel goods.
Section 10.3028 also implements CPTA Articles 3.2 and 4.18, and sections 205, 208 and 209 of the Act and provides the procedures that apply when preferential tariff treatment is
Section 10.3029 implements CTPA Article 4.18.5 and section 205(b) of the Act, concerning the denial of preferential tariff treatment in situations in which there is a pattern of conduct by an importer, exporter, or producer of false or unsupported CTPA preference claims.
Section 10.3030 concerns the general application of penalties to CTPA transactions and is based on CTPA Article 5.9 and section 205 of the Act.
Section 10.3031 implements CTPA Article 4.19.3 and section 205(a)(1) of the Act with regard to an exception to the application of penalties in the case of an importer who promptly and voluntarily makes a corrected claim and pays any duties owing.
Section 10.3032 implements CPTPA Article 4.20.2 and section 205(a)(2) of the Act, concerning an exception to the application of penalties in the case of a U.S. exporter or producer who promptly and voluntarily provides notification of the making of an incorrect certification with respect to a good exported to Colombia.
Section 10.3033 sets forth the circumstances under which the making of a corrected claim or certification by an importer or the providing of notification of an incorrect certification by a U.S. exporter or producer will be considered to have been done “promptly and voluntarily.” Corrected claims or certifications that fail to meet these requirements are not excepted from penalties, although the U.S. importer, exporter, or producer making the corrected claim or certification may, depending on the circumstances, qualify for a reduced penalty as a prior disclosure under 19 U.S.C. 1592(c)(4). Section 10.3033(c) also specifies the content of the statement that must accompany each corrected claim or certification, including any certifications and records demonstrating that a good is an originating good.
Section 10.3034 implements CTPA Article 2.6 regarding duty-free treatment for goods re-entered after repair or alteration in Colombia.
An amendment is made to § 24.23(c) (19 CFR 24.23(c)), which concerns the merchandise processing fee, to implement section 204 of the Act providing that the merchandise processing fee is not applicable to goods that qualify as originating goods under the CTPA.
Part 162 contains regulations regarding the inspection and examination of, among other things, imported merchandise. A cross-reference is added to § 162.0 (19 CFR 162.0), which prescribes the scope of that part, to refer readers to the additional CTPA records maintenance and examination provisions contained in Subpart T, Part 10, CBP regulations.
A conforming amendment is made to § 163.1 (19 CFR 163.1) to include the maintenance of any documentation, as required by section 207 of the Act, that the importer may have in support of a claim for preference under the CTPA as an activity for which records must be maintained. Also, the list of records and information required for the entry of merchandise appearing in the Appendix to Part 163 (commonly known as the “(a)(1)(A) list”) is also amended to add the records that the importer may have in support of a CTPA claim for preferential tariff treatment.
Part 178 sets forth the control numbers assigned to information collections of CBP by the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. The list contained in § 178.2 (19 CFR 178.2) is amended to add the information collections used by CBP to determine eligibility for preferential tariff treatment under the CTPA and the Act.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. 553), agencies generally are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States and implements an international agreement, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required under section 553(b) of the APA for the reasons described above, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601
The collections of information contained in these regulations are under the review of the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control numbers 1651–0117, which covers many of the free trade agreement requirements that CBP administers, and 1651–0076, which covers general recordkeeping requirements. The addition of the CTPA requirements will result in an increase in the number of respondents and burden hours for this information collection. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
The collections of information in these regulations are in §§ 10.3003, 10.3004, and 10.3007. This information is required in connection with general recordkeeping requirements (§§ 10.3007), as well as claims for preferential tariff treatment under the CTPA and the Act and will be used by CBP to determine eligibility for tariff preference under the CTPA and the Act (§§ 10.3003 and 10.3004). The likely respondents are business organizations
Comments concerning the collections of information and the accuracy of the estimated annual burden, and suggestions for reducing that burden, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy should also be sent to the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1179.
This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
Alterations, Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Preference programs, Repairs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Accounting, Customs duties and inspection, Financial and accounting procedures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements, User fees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Penalties, Trade agreements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, chapter I of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR chapter I), is amended as set forth below.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 3314.
Sections 10.3001 through 10.3034 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1202 (General Note 34, HTSUS), 19 U.S.C. 1520(d), and Pub. L. 112–42, 125 Stat. 462 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note).
The revision to § 10.31(f) reads as follows:
(f) * * * In addition, notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, in the case of professional equipment necessary for carrying out the business activity, trade or profession of a business person, equipment for the press or for sound or television broadcasting, cinematographic equipment, articles imported for sports purposes and articles intended for display or demonstration, if brought into the United States by a resident of Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Bahrain, Oman, Peru, the Republic of Korea, or Colombia and entered under Chapter 98, Subchapter XIII, HTSUS, no bond or other security will be required if the entered article is a good originating, within the meaning of General Note 12, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, HTSUS, in the country of which the importer is a resident.
This subpart implements the duty preference and related customs provisions applicable to imported and exported goods under the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the CTPA) signed on November 22, 2006, and under the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”), Public Law 112–42, 125 Stat. 462 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note). Except as otherwise specified in this subpart, the procedures and other requirements set forth in this subpart are in addition to the customs procedures and requirements of general application contained elsewhere in this chapter. Additional provisions implementing certain aspects of the CTPA and the Act are contained in Parts 24, 162, and 163 of this chapter.
As used in this subpart, the following terms will have the meanings indicated unless either the context in which they are used requires a different meaning or a different definition is prescribed for a particular section of this subpart:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Charge equivalent to an internal tax imposed consistently with Article III:2 of GATT 1994 in respect of like, directly competitive, or substitutable goods of the Party, or in respect of goods from which the imported good has been manufactured or produced in whole or in part;
(2) Antidumping or countervailing duty that is applied pursuant to a Party's domestic law; or
(3) Fee or other charge in connection with importation commensurate with the cost of services rendered;
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(1) With respect to Colombia, in addition to its continental territory, the archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, the islands of Malpelo, and all the other islands, islets, keys, headlands and shoals that belong to it, as well as air space and the maritime areas over which Colombia has sovereignty or sovereign rights or jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law and international law, including applicable international treaties; and
(2) With respect to the United States:
(i) The customs territory of the United States, which includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico;
(ii) The foreign trade zones located in the United States and Puerto Rico; and
(iii) Any areas beyond the territorial seas of the United States within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic law, the United States may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;
(v)
(w)
(a)
(1) A written or electronic certification, as specified in § 10.3004, that is prepared by the importer, exporter, or producer of the good; or
(2) The importer's knowledge that the good is an originating good, including reasonable reliance on information in the importer's possession that the good is an originating good.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) Need not be in a prescribed format but must be in writing or must be transmitted electronically pursuant to any electronic means authorized by CBP for that purpose;
(2) Must be in the possession of the importer at the time the claim for preferential tariff treatment is made if the certification forms the basis for the claim;
(3) Must include the following information:
(i) The legal name, address, telephone number, and email address of the certifying person;
(ii) If not the certifying person, the legal name, address, telephone number, and email address of the importer of record, the exporter, and the producer of the good, if known;
(iii) The legal name, address, telephone number, and email address of the responsible official or authorized agent of the importer, exporter, or producer signing the certification (if different from the information required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section);
(iv) A description of the good for which preferential tariff treatment is claimed, which must be sufficiently detailed to relate it to the invoice and the HS nomenclature;
(v) The HTSUS tariff classification, to six or more digits, as necessary for the specific change in tariff classification rule for the good set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS; and
(vi) The applicable rule of origin set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS, under which the good qualifies as an originating good;
(vii) Date of certification;
(viii) In case of a blanket certification issued with respect to multiple shipments of identical goods within any period specified in the written or electronic certification, not exceeding 12 months from the date of certification, the period that the certification covers; and
(4) Must include a statement, in substantially the following form:
“I certify that:
The information on this document is true and accurate and I assume the responsibility for proving such representations. I understand that I am liable for any false statements or material omissions made on or in connection with this document;
I agree to maintain and present upon request, documentation necessary to support these representations;
The goods comply with all requirements for preferential tariff treatment specified for those goods in the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement; and
This document consists of ___ pages, including all attachments.”
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i) The exporter's or producer's knowledge that the good is originating; or
(ii) In the case of an exporter, reasonable reliance on the producer's certification that the good is originating.
(2) The port director may not require an exporter or producer to provide a written or electronic certification to another person.
(e)
(1) A single shipment of a good into the United States; or
(2) Multiple shipments of identical goods into the United States that occur within a specified blanket period, not exceeding 12 months, set out in the certification.
(f)
(a)
(1) Will be deemed to have certified that the good is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the CTPA;
(2) Is responsible for the truthfulness of the claim and of all the information and data contained in the certification provided for in § 10.3004; and
(3) Is responsible for submitting any supporting documents requested by CBP, and for the truthfulness of the information contained in those documents. When a certification prepared by an exporter or producer forms the basis of a claim for preferential tariff treatment, and CBP requests the submission of supporting documents, the importer will provide to CBP, or arrange for the direct submission by the exporter or producer of, all information relied on by the exporter or producer in preparing the certification.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) A non-commercial importation of a good; or
(2) A commercial importation for which the value of the originating goods does not exceed U.S. $2,500.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for, the good;
(ii) The purchase, cost, and value of, and payment for, all materials, including indirect materials, used in the production of the good; and
(iii) The production of the good in the form in which the good was exported.
(2)
(3)
Notwithstanding any other available remedy, where a good would have qualified as an originating good when it was imported into the United States but no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made, the importer of that good may file a claim for a refund of any excess duties at any time within one year after the date of importation of the good in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 10.3011. Subject to the provisions of § 10.3008, CBP may refund any excess duties by liquidation or reliquidation of the entry covering the good in accordance with § 10.3012(c).
(a)
(b)
(1) A written or electronic declaration or statement stating that the good was an originating good at the time of importation and setting forth the number and date of the entry or entries covering the good;
(2) A copy of a written or electronic certification prepared in accordance with § 10.3004 if a certification forms the basis for the claim, or other information demonstrating that the good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment;
(3) A written statement indicating whether the importer of the good provided a copy of the entry summary or equivalent documentation to any other person. If such documentation was so provided, the statement must identify each recipient by name, CBP identification number, and address and must specify the date on which the documentation was provided; and
(4) A written statement indicating whether any person has filed a protest relating to the good under any provision of law; and if any such protest has been filed, the statement must identify the protest by number and date.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(2)
(3)
For purposes of §§ 10.3013 through 10.3025:
(a)
(1) Any costs, charges, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance and related services incident to the international shipment of the good from the country of exportation to the place of importation; and
(2) The value of packing materials and containers for shipment as defined in paragraph (n) of this section;
(b)
(1) Motor vehicles classified under subheading 8701.20, motor vehicles for the transport of 16 or more persons classified under 8704.10 or 8702.90, HTSUS, and motor vehicles classified under subheading 8704.10, 8704.22, 8704.23, 8704.32, or 8704.90, or heading 8705 or 8706;
(2) Motor vehicles classified under subheading 8701.10 or subheadings 8701.30 through 8701.90, HTSUS;
(3) Motor vehicles for the transport of 15 or fewer persons classified under subheading 8702.10 or 8702.90, HTSUS, and motor vehicles of subheading 8704.21 or 8704.31, HTSUS; or
(4) Motor vehicles classified under subheadings 8703.21 through 8703.90, HTSUS;
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Plants and plant products harvested or gathered in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
(2) Live animals born and raised in the territory of one or both of the
Parties;
(3) Goods obtained in the territory of one or both of the Parties from live animals;
(4) Goods obtained from hunting, trapping, fishing, or aquaculture conducted in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
(5) Minerals and other natural resources not included in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section that are extracted or taken in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
(6) Fish, shellfish, and other marine life taken from the sea, seabed, or subsoil outside the territory of the Parties by:
(i) Vessels registered or recorded with Colombia and flying its flag; or
(ii) Vessels documented under the laws of the United States;
(7) Goods produced on board factory ships from the goods referred to in paragraph (g)(6) of this section, if such factory ships are:
(i) Registered or recorded with Colombia and fly its flag; or
(ii) Documented under the laws of the United States;
(8) Goods taken by a Party or a person of a Party from the seabed or subsoil outside territorial waters, if a Party has rights to exploit such seabed or subsoil;
(9) Goods taken from outer space, provided they are obtained by a Party or a person of a Party and not processed in the territory of a non-Party;
(10) Waste and scrap derived from:
(i) Manufacturing or processing operations in the territory of one or both of the Parties; or
(ii) Used goods collected in the territory of one or both of the Parties, if such goods are fit only for the recovery of raw materials;
(11) Recovered goods derived in the territory of one or both of the Parties from used goods, and used in the territory of one or both of the Parties in the production of remanufactured goods; and
(12) Goods produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties exclusively from goods referred to in any of paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(10) of this section, or from the derivatives of such goods, at any stage of production;
(h)
(1) Fuel and energy;
(2) Tools, dies, and molds;
(3) Spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of equipment or buildings;
(4) Lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other materials used in production or used to operate equipment or buildings;
(5) Gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, and supplies;
(6) Equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or inspecting the good;
(7) Catalysts and solvents; and
(8) Any other good that is not incorporated into the other good but the use of which in the production of the other good can reasonably be demonstrated to be a part of that production.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(1) The disassembly of used goods into individual parts; and
(2) The cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing that is necessary to improve such individual parts to sound working condition;
(s)
(1) Is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods as defined in paragraph (r) of this section; and
(2) Has a similar life expectancy and enjoys a factory warranty similar to such new goods;
(t)
(1) Personnel training, without regard to where performed; and
(2) If performed in the territory of one or both of the Parties, engineering, tooling, die-setting, software design and similar computer services;
(u)
(1) Sales and marketing promotion; media advertising; advertising and market research; promotional and demonstration materials; exhibits; sales conferences, trade shows and conventions; banners; marketing displays; free samples; sales, marketing, and after-sales service literature (product brochures, catalogs, technical literature, price lists, service manuals, sales aid information); establishment and protection of logos and trademarks; sponsorships; wholesale and retail restocking charges; entertainment;
(2) Sales and marketing incentives; consumer, retailer or wholesaler rebates; merchandise incentives;
(3) Salaries and wages, sales commissions, bonuses, benefits (for example, medical, insurance, pension), traveling and living expenses, membership and professional fees, for sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service personnel;
(4) Recruiting and training of sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service personnel, and after-sales training of customers' employees, where such costs are identified separately for sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service of goods on the financial statements or cost accounts of the producer;
(5) Product liability insurance;
(6) Office supplies for sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service of goods, where such costs are identified separately for sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service of goods on the financial statements or cost accounts of the producer;
(7) Telephone, mail and other communications, where such costs are identified separately for sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service of goods on the financial statements or cost accounts of the producer;
(8) Rent and depreciation of sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service offices and distribution centers;
(9) Property insurance premiums, taxes, cost of utilities, and repair and maintenance of sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service offices and distribution centers, where such costs are identified separately for sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service of goods on the financial statements or cost accounts of the producer; and
(10) Payments by the producer to other persons for warranty repairs;
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
(z)
Except as otherwise provided in this subpart and General Note 34, HTSUS, a good imported into the customs territory of the United States will be considered an originating good under the CTPA only if:
(a) The good is wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
(b) The good is produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties and:
(1) Each non-originating material used in the production of the good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification specified in General Note 34, HTSUS, and the good satisfies all other applicable requirements of General Note 34, HTSUS; or
(2) The good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional value content or other requirements specified in General Note 34, HTSUS, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of General Note 34, HTSUS; or
(c) The good is produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties exclusively from originating materials.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i) Calculating the total cost incurred with respect to all goods produced by the producer of the automotive good, subtracting any sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and non-allowable interest costs that are included in the total cost of all such goods, and then reasonably allocating the resulting net cost of those goods to the automotive good;
(ii) Calculating the total cost incurred with respect to all goods produced by the producer of the automotive good, reasonably allocating the total cost to the automotive good, and then subtracting any sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, and non-allowable interest costs that are included in the portion of the total cost allocated to the automotive good; or
(iii) Reasonably allocating each cost that forms part of the total costs incurred with respect to the automotive good so that the aggregate of these costs does not include any sales promotion, marketing, and after-sales service costs, royalties, shipping and packing costs, or non-allowable interest costs.
(3)
(ii)
(A) The same model line of motor vehicles, in the same class of vehicles, produced in the same plant in the territory of a Party, as the motor vehicle for which the regional value content is being calculated;
(B) The same class of motor vehicles, and produced in the same plant in the territory of a Party, as the motor vehicle for which the regional value content is being calculated; and
(C) The same model line of motor vehicles produced in the territory of a Party as the motor vehicle for which the regional value content is being calculated.
(4)
(A) Average the amounts calculated under the formula set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section over any of the following: the fiscal year, or any quarter or month, of the motor vehicle producer to whom the automotive good is sold, or the fiscal year, or any quarter or month, of the producer of the automotive good, provided the goods were produced during the fiscal year, quarter, or month that is the basis for the calculation;
(B) Determine the average referred to in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section separately for such goods sold to one or more motor vehicle producers; or
(C) Make a separate determination under paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) or (d)(4)(i)(B) of this section for automotive goods that are exported to the territory of Colombia or the United States.
(ii)
(a)
(1) In the case of a material imported by the producer of the good, the adjusted value of the material;
(2) In the case of a material acquired by the producer in the territory where the good is produced, the value, determined in accordance with Articles 1 through 8, Article 15, and the corresponding interpretative notes of the Customs Valuation Agreement, of the material, i.e., in the same manner as for imported goods, with reasonable modifications to the provisions of the Customs Valuation Agreement as may be required due to the absence of an importation by the producer (including, but not limited to, treating a domestic purchase by the producer as if it were a sale for export to the country of importation); or
(3) In the case of a self-produced material, the sum of:
(i) All expenses incurred in the production of the material, including general expenses; and
(ii) An amount for profit equivalent to the profit added in the normal course of trade.
(b)
A producer in Colombia purchases material x from an unrelated seller in Colombia for $100. Under the provisions of Article 1 of the Customs Valuation Agreement, transaction value is the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the country of importation adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Article 8. In order to apply Article 1 to this domestic purchase by the producer, such purchase is treated as if it were a sale for export to the country of importation. Therefore, for purposes of determining the adjusted value of material x, Article 1 transaction value is the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold to the producer in Colombia ($100), adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Article 8. In this example, it is irrelevant whether material x was initially imported into Colombia by the seller (or by anyone else). So long as the producer acquired material x in Colombia, it is intended that the value of material x will be determined on the basis of the price actually paid or payable by the producer adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Article 8.
Same facts as in Example 1, except that the sale between the seller and the producer is subject to certain restrictions that preclude the application of Article 1. Under Article 2 of the Customs Valuation Agreement, the value is the transaction value of identical goods sold for export to the same country of importation and exported at or about the same time as the goods being valued. In order to permit the application of Article 2 to the domestic acquisition by the producer, it should be modified so that the value is the transaction value of identical goods sold within Colombia at or about the same time the goods were sold to the producer in Colombia. Thus, if the seller of material x also sold an identical material to another buyer in Colombia without restrictions, that other sale would be used to determine the adjusted value of material x.
(c)
(i) The costs of freight (“cost of freight” includes the costs of all types of freight, including in-land freight incurred within a Party's territory, regardless of the mode of transportation), insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the material within or between the territory of one or both of the Parties to the location of the producer;
(ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the material paid in the territory of one or both of the Parties, other than duties and taxes that are waived, refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including credit against duty or tax paid or payable; and
(iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use of the material in the production of the good, less the value of renewable scrap or byproducts.
(2)
(i) The costs of freight (“cost of freight” includes the costs of all types of freight, including in-land freight incurred within a Party's territory, regardless of the mode of transportation), insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the material within or between the territory of one or both of the Parties to the location of the producer;
(ii) Duties, taxes, and customs brokerage fees on the material paid in the territory of one or both of the Parties, other than duties and taxes that are waived, refunded, refundable, or otherwise recoverable, including credit against duty or tax paid or payable;
(iii) The cost of waste and spoilage resulting from the use of the material in the production of the good, less the value of renewable scrap or by-products; and
(iv) The cost of originating materials used in the production of the non-originating material in the territory of one or both of the Parties.
(d)
(a) Originating materials from the territory of a Party that are used in the production of a good in the territory of another Party will be considered to originate in the territory of that other Party.
(b) A good that is produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties by one or more producers is an originating good if the good satisfies the requirements of § 10.3014 and all other applicable requirements of General Note 34, HTSUS.
(a)
(1) The value of all non-originating materials used in the production of the good that do not undergo the applicable change in tariff classification does not exceed 10 percent of the adjusted value of the good;
(2) The value of the non-originating materials described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is included in the value of non-originating materials for any applicable regional value content requirement for the good under General Note 34, HTSUS; and
(3) The good meets all other applicable requirements of General Note 34, HTSUS.
(b)
(1) A non-originating material provided for in Chapter 4, HTSUS, or a non-originating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90 or 2106.90, HTSUS, that is used in the production of a good provided for in Chapter 4, HTSUS;
(2) A non-originating material provided for in Chapter 4, HTSUS, or a non-originating dairy preparation containing over 10 percent by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90, HTSUS, which is used in the production of the following goods:
(i) Infant preparations containing over 10 percent by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.10, HTSUS;
(ii) Mixes and doughs, containing over 25 percent by weight of butterfat, not put up for retail sale, provided for in subheading 1901.20, HTSUS;
(iii) Dairy preparations containing over 10 percent by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 1901.90 or 2106.90, HTSUS;
(iv) Goods provided for in heading 2105, HTSUS;
(v) Beverages containing milk provided for in subheading 2202.90, HTSUS; or
(vi) Animal feeds containing over 10 percent by weight of milk solids provided for in subheading 2309.90, HTSUS;
(3) A non-originating material provided for in heading 0805, HTSUS, or any of subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, HTSUS, that is used in the production of a good provided for in any of subheadings 2009.11 through 2009.39, HTSUS, or in fruit or vegetable juice of any single fruit or vegetable, fortified with minerals or vitamins, concentrated or unconcentrated, provided for in subheading 2106.90 or 2202.90, HTSUS;
(4) A non-originating material provided for in heading 0901 or 2101, HTSUS, that is used in the production of a good provided for in heading 0901 or 2101, HTSUS;
(5) A non-originating material provided for in headings 1501 through 1508, HTSUS, or headings 1511 through 1515, HTSUS;
(6) A non-originating material provided for in heading 1701, HTSUS, that is used in the production of a good provided for in any of headings 1701 through 1703, HTSUS;
(7) A non-originating material provided for in Chapter 17, HTSUS, that is used in the production of a good provided for in subheading 1806.10, HTSUS; or
(8) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section and General Note 34, HTSUS, a non-originating material used in the production of a good provided for in any of Chapters 1 through 24, HTSUS, unless the non-originating material is provided for in a different subheading than the good for which origin is being determined under this subpart.
(c)
(i) The total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that component is not more than 10 percent of the total weight of that component; or
(ii) The yarns are nylon filament yarns (other than elastomeric yarns) that are provided for in subheading 5402.11.30, 5402.11.60, 5402.19.30, 5402.19.60, 5402.31.30, 5402.31.60, 5402.32.30, 5402.32.60, 5402.45.10, 5402.45.90, 5402.51.00, or 5402.61.00, HTSUS, and that are products of Canada, Mexico, or Israel.
(2)
(3)
(a)
(1) Averaging;
(2) “Last-in, first-out;”
(3) “First-in, first-out;” or
(4) Any other method that is recognized in the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the Party in which the production is performed or otherwise accepted by that country.
(b)
(a)
(1) The accessories, spare parts, or tools are classified with, and not invoiced separately from, the good, regardless of whether they are specified or separately identified in the invoice for the good; and
(2) The quantities and value of the accessories, spare parts, or tools are customary for the good.
(b)
Notwithstanding the specific rules set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS, goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3, HTSUS, will not be considered to be originating goods unless:
(a) Each of the goods in the set is an originating good; or
(b) The total value of the non-originating goods in the set does not exceed;
(1) In the case of textile or apparel goods, 10 percent of the adjusted value of the set; or
(2) In the case of a good other than a textile or apparel good, 15 percent of the adjusted value of the set.
(a)
(b)
Colombian Producer A of good C imports 100 non-originating blister packages to be used as retail packaging for good C. As provided in § 10.3016(a)(1), the value of the blister packages is their adjusted value, which in this case is $10. Good C has a regional value content requirement. The United States importer of good C decides to use the build-down method, RVC=((AV–VNM)/AV) x 100 (
Same facts as in Example 1, except that the blister packages are originating. In this case, the adjusted value of the originating blister packages would
(a)
(b)
Colombian producer A produces good C. Producer A ships good C to the United States in a shipping container that it purchased from Company B in Colombia. The shipping container is originating. The value of the shipping container determined under section § 10.3016(a)(2) is $3. Good C is subject to a regional value content requirement. The transaction value of good C is $100, which includes the $3 shipping container. The U.S. importer decides to use the build-up method, RVC=(VOM/AV) × 100 (
An indirect material, as defined in § 10.3013(h), will be considered to be an originating material without regard to where it is produced.
Colombian Producer A produces good C using non-originating material B. Producer A imports non-originating rubber gloves for use by workers in the production of good C. Good C is subject to a tariff shift requirement. As provided in § 10.3014(b)(1) and General Note 34, each of the non-originating materials in good C must undergo the specified change in tariff classification in order for good C to be considered originating. Although non-originating material B must undergo the applicable tariff shift in order for good C to be considered originating, the rubber gloves do not because they are indirect materials and are considered originating without regard to where they are produced.
(a)
(1) Undergoes further production or any other operation outside the territories of the Parties, other than unloading, reloading, or any other operation necessary to preserve the good in good condition or to transport the good to the territory of a Party; or
(2) Does not remain under the control of customs authorities in the territory of a non-Party.
(b)
(a)
(1) Written requests for information from the importer, exporter, or producer;
(2) Written questionnaires to the importer, exporter, or producer;
(3) Visits to the premises of the exporter or producer in the territory of Colombia, to review the records of the type referred to in § 10.3009(c)(1) or to observe the facilities used in the production of the good, in accordance with the framework that the Parties develop for conducting verifications; and
(4) Such other procedures to which the Parties may agree.
(b)
(a)
(2)
(i) Suspending the application of preferential tariff treatment to the textile or apparel good for which a claim for preferential tariff treatment has been made, if CBP determines there is insufficient information to support the claim;
(ii) Denying the application of preferential tariff treatment to the textile or apparel good for which a claim for preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the subject of a verification if CBP determines that a person has provided incorrect information to support the claim;
(iii) Detention of any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines there is insufficient information to determine the country of origin of any such good; and
(iv) Denying entry to any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines that the person has provided incorrect information as to the country of origin of any such good.
(3)
(i) Denying the application of preferential tariff treatment to the textile or apparel good for which a claim for preferential tariff treatment has been made that is the subject of a verification if CBP determines there is insufficient information, or that the person has provided incorrect information, to support the claim; and
(ii) Denying entry to any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines there is insufficient information to determine, or that the person has provided incorrect information as to, the country of origin of any such good.
(b)
(2)
(i) Suspending the application of preferential tariff treatment to any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines there is insufficient information to support a claim for preferential tariff treatment with respect to any such good;
(ii) Denying the application of preferential tariff treatment to any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines that the person has provided incorrect information to support a claim for preferential tariff treatment with respect to any such good;
(iii) Detention of any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines there is insufficient information to determine the country of origin of any such good; and
(iv) Denying entry to any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines that the person has provided incorrect information as to the country of origin of any such good.
(3)
(i) Denying the application of preferential tariff treatment to any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines there is insufficient information, or that the person has provided incorrect information, to support a claim for preferential tariff treatment with respect to any such good; and
(ii) Denying entry to any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the person subject to the verification if CBP determines there is insufficient information to determine, or that the person has provided incorrect information as to, the country of origin of any such good.
(c)
(d)
(e)
If, as a result of an origin verification initiated under this subpart, CBP determines that a claim for preferential tariff treatment under this subpart should be denied, it will issue a determination in writing or via an authorized electronic data interchange system to the importer that sets forth the following:
(a) A description of the good that was the subject of the verification together with the identifying numbers and dates of the import documents pertaining to the good;
(b) A statement setting forth the findings of fact made in connection with the verification and upon which the determination is based; and
(c) With specific reference to the rules applicable to originating goods as set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS, and in §§ 10.3013 through 10.3025, the legal basis for the determination.
Where verification or other information reveals a pattern of conduct by an importer, exporter, or producer of false or unsupported representations that goods qualify under the CTPA rules of origin set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS, CBP may suspend preferential tariff treatment under the CTPA to entries of identical goods covered by subsequent representations by that importer, exporter, or producer until CBP determines that representations of that person are in conformity with General Note 34, HTSUS.
Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, all criminal, civil, or
An importer who makes a corrected claim under § 10.3003(c) will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 for having made an incorrect claim or having submitted an incorrect certification, provided that the corrected claim is promptly and voluntarily made.
Civil or administrative penalties provided for under 19 U.S.C. 1592 will not be imposed on an exporter or producer in the United States who promptly and voluntarily provides written notification pursuant to § 10.3009(b) with respect to the making of an incorrect certification.
(a) “
(1)(i) Done before the commencement of a formal investigation, within the meaning of § 162.74(g) of this chapter; or
(ii) Done before any of the events specified in § 162.74(i) of this chapter have occurred; or
(iii) Done within 30 days after the importer, exporter, or producer initially becomes aware that the claim or certification is incorrect; and
(2) Accompanied by a statement setting forth the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section; and
(3) In the case of a corrected claim or certification by an importer, accompanied or followed by a tender of any actual loss of duties and merchandise processing fees, if applicable, in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(1) Identifies the class or kind of good to which the incorrect claim or certification relates;
(2) In the case of a corrected claim or certification by an importer, identifies each affected import transaction, including each port of importation and the approximate date of each importation;
(3) Specifies the nature of the incorrect statements or omissions regarding the claim or certification; and
(4) Sets forth, to the best of the person's knowledge, the true and accurate information or data which should have been covered by or provided in the claim or certification, and states that the person will provide any additional information or data which is unknown at the time of making the corrected claim or certification within 30 days or within any extension of that 30-day period as CBP may permit in order for the person to obtain the information or data.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a-58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, 1520, 1624; 26 U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1
Section 24.23 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 3332;
(c) * * *
(13) The ad valorem fee, surcharge, and specific fees provided under paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) of this section will not apply to goods that qualify as originating goods under section 203 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1592, 1593a, 1624.
* * * Additional provisions concerning records maintenance and examination applicable to U.S. importers, exporters and producers under the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, and the U.S-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement are contained in Part 10, Subparts H, I, J, M, Q, R, and T of this chapter, respectively.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1624.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xv) The maintenance of any documentation that the importer may have in support of a claim for preferential tariff treatment under the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA), including a CTPA importer's certification.
IV. * * *
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 44 U.S.C. 3501
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia.
Final rule.
The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (“CSOSA”) is issuing a final rule to change all references to the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (“PSA”), an independent federal agency within CSOSA, to reflect the change of the agency's name to the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia. Additionally, the description of PSA's seal is being amended. The regulations are also being amended to clearly state that either CSOSA's Director or PSA's Director or designee has the authority to affix the seal for that Director's respective agency. Finally, the regulations are being amended to clearly state that either CSOSA's or PSA's Director or designee may approve the use of the seal. All the changes made in this rule are strictly technical.
Effective September 26, 2012.
Rorey Smith, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 220–5797, or
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act (DC HRA), Public Law 93–198, granted the Council of District of Columbia (“Council”) with legislative authority over essentially local District matters. After forty-eight (48) months of the passage of the D.C. HRA, the Council had the authority to enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 23 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal procedure). With respect to any act codified in title 23 of the District of Columbia Code, such act takes effect at the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate unless, during such 60-day period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act.
On June 3, 2011, the District of Columbia Criminal Code Amendments Act of 2010, D.C. Law 18–377, became effective and was codified at D.C. Official Code section 23–1301. Section 210 of this Act amended section 23–
Because this regulation merely implements a change in the name of a government agency and the description of the agency seal, it relates only to agency organization, procedure or practice; therefore, requirements for prior notice and public comment do not apply. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). The limited purpose and effect of this rule also justifies the finding for good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that the rule should take effect immediately.
This final rule does not include or modify a collection of information as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Because the agency is issuing this rule without a proposal and an opportunity for comments, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) does not apply. In any event, the technical amendments made by this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulation is a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. It is therefore not subject to the Congressional Review Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801 and 804(3)(C).
Following consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, a determination was made that this rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not have Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
Probation and parole, Seals and insignia.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia amends 28 CFR Part 803 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, Pub L. 105–33, 111 Stat. 251, 712, D.C. Code 24–133.
(b) The Agency seal of the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA or Agency) is described as follows: Two crossed flags, the United States flag on the left and the District of Columbia flag on the right superimposed upon the United States Capitol dome and two laurel branches both in gold which appear on a blue field bearing a white banner edged and lettered in gold with the inscription “COMMUNITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, JUSTICE”; bearing the inscription “PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY” at the top, and “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA” at the bottom surrounded by three gold stars on either side; letters and stars in gold. A reproduction of the Agency seal in black and white appears below.
The Director of CSOSA or PSA (as appropriate) and each Director's designees are authorized to affix their respective Agency seal (including replicas and reproductions) to appropriate documents, certifications, and other materials for all purposes authorized by this part.
(a) Each Agency's seal is used by that Agency's staff for official Agency business as approved by the appropriate Director or designee in accordance with all subparts of 28 CFR 803.3.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Norfolk Southern #7 Railroad Bridge across the Elizabeth River (Southern Branch), AIWW mile 5.8, at Chesapeake, VA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate replacing lift joints on the Norfolk Southern #7 Railroad Bridge. This temporary deviation will allow the drawbridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position on specific dates and times.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on October 9, 2012 until 8 p.m. on October 11, 2012.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG–2012–0870 and are available online at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone (757) 398–6557, email
The Norfolk Southern Corporation, owner and operator of the single-leaf bascule Norfolk Southern #7 Railroad Bridge, mile 5.8, at Chesapeake, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.997(d), to accommodate lift joint replacement.
Under the current operating schedule the bridge shall be left in the open position at all times and will only be lowered for the passage of trains and to perform periodic maintenance. The Norfolk Southern #7 Bridge, at AIWW mile 5.8, across the Elizabeth River (Southern Branch) in Chesapeake, VA, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 7 feet above mean high water.
To facilitate lift joint replacement, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on October 9, 2012 and again from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on October 11, 2012; at all other times the bridge will operate in accordance to its regular operating schedule. The bridge normally operates in the open position with several vessels transiting a week. Coordination with waterway users has been completed.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the opening restrictions of the draw span to minimize transiting delays caused by the temporary deviation. There are no alternate routes available but vessels may pass between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the relevant time period. Mariners able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time and the bridge is able to open for emergencies. Mariners are advised to proceed with caution.
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.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around vessels involved in a Coast Guard Ready for Operations exercise in Hood Canal, WA that will take place between Oct 16, 2012 and Oct 18, 2012. A safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public during the exercise and will do so by prohibiting any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or his Designated Representative.
This rule is effective from 4:00 a.m. Oct 16, 2012 until 11:59 p.m. on Oct 18, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2012–0822. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email ENS Nathaniel P. Clinger; Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone 206–217–6045, email
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable, since the event requiring the establishment of this safety zone would be over before a comment period would end. The vessels involved in the Coast Guard Ready for Operations exercise have an important and urgent need to perform this training in order to be ready to protect U.S. persons, assets, and waters; it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM before the date of the event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard will be conducting a Ready for Operations (RFO) exercise in the northern part of Hood Canal, WA. During the exercise, tactical vessels will be maneuvering through the Hood Canal from the entrance of Dabob Bay to Foul Weather Bluff. This exercise will include fast moving surface vessels, smoke machines, and pyrotechnics. Blank ammunition, flares and LA51 warning munitions will be used during the exercise. A safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public and vessels participating in the exercise by preventing collisions between exercising vessels and the maritime public, and by keeping the maritime public a safe distance away from potentially startling or disorienting smoke, bright flashes, and loud noises.
The temporary safety zone established by this rule will prohibit any person or vessel from entering or remaining
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases this finding on the fact that the safety zone will be in place for a limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to transit through the zone from the COTP, Puget Sound or his Designated Representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities; the owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the waters covered by the safety zone while it is in effect. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the safety zone will be in place for a limited period of time and maritime traffic will still be able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit through the zone from the COTP, Puget Sound or his Designated Representative.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165, as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
Rehabilitation Services Administration, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Final waivers and extensions of project periods.
The Secretary waives the regulations that generally limit project periods to 60 months and that restrict project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. As a result, for the 60-month projects initially funded in fiscal year (FY) 2007 under the AIVRS program, the Secretary is extending the project periods until September 30, 2013.
This notice of final waivers and extensions of the project periods is effective September 26, 2012.
August Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5049, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2800. Telephone: (202) 245–7410.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1–800–877–8339.
On July 25, 2012, the Department published a notice in the
There are no substantive differences between the notice of proposed waivers and extensions and this notice of final waivers and extensions.
In the July 25, 2012, notice for the AIVRS program, the Secretary invited comments on the effect these proposed waivers and extensions may have on the AIVRS program and on potential applicants for grant awards under any new AIVRS notice inviting applications, should there be one. We received comments from 13 commenters, 10 of which supported the Department's proposal to waive regulations at 34 CFR 75.250 and 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2) restricting project period extensions past 60 months and restricting extensions that require additional Federal funds and to extend the project period for 8 AIVRS grantees beyond September 30, 2012, so that they could continue to receive Federal funds from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address general comments that raise concerns not directly related to the proposed waivers and extensions.
Human capital and fiscal resources that were expended in anticipation of a potential competition in FY 2012 have not been wasted. Application requirements for a FY 2013 competition are not likely to differ substantially from those in previous competitions. As such, application materials developed in anticipation of a potential competition in FY 2012 should be able to be used in the FY 2013 competition.
The eight AIVRS grantees, selected based on the 2007 AIVRS NIA published on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11851), provide vocational rehabilitation services to American Indians with disabilities who reside on or near Federal or State reservations as authorized by section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 741).
The project period for the eight AIVRS grantees was scheduled to end September 30, 2012. However, section 121(b)(3) of the Act provides that the Department has the authority to make an AIVRS grant effective for more than 60 months, pursuant to prescribed regulations. Therefore, for these eight AIVRS grantees, the Secretary waives the requirements of 34 CFR 75.250 and 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2) which limit project periods to 60 months and restrict project period extensions that involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. The Secretary also extends the current project period for the eight AIVRS grantees funded in FY 2007 until September 30, 2013. Finally, the Department will not announce a new AIVRS competition or make new awards in FY 2012.
This action allows the eight AIVRS grantees to request continuation funding in FY 2012. Decisions regarding annual continuation awards will be based on the program narratives, budgets, budget narratives, and program performance reports submitted by these eight AIVRS grantees and on the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253. Any activities to be carried out during the year of continuation awards would have to be consistent with, or be a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of each grantee's application as approved following the 2007 AIVRS competition. The 2007 AIVRS NIA will continue to govern their projects during the extension year. These current AIVRS grantees may request continuation awards in FY 2012 for project periods through FY 2013.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a substantive rule must be published at least 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). We have not made any substantive changes to the proposal. The Secretary has therefore determined to waive the delayed effective date to ensure timely continuation grants to the entities affected.
The Secretary certifies that this final extension of the project period and waiver will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that will be affected are the current grantees and any other potential applicants.
The final waivers and extensions of project periods do not contain any information collection requirements.
This program is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
The official version of this document is the document published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This final rule amends Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations concerning Fisher Houses and other temporary lodging furnished by VA while a veteran is experiencing an episode of care at a VA health care facility. This final rule better describes the application process for this lodging and clarifies the distinctions between Fisher Houses and other temporary lodging provided by VA. This final rule generally reflects current VA policy and practice, and conforms to industry standards and expectations.
This final rule is effective October 26, 2012.
Deborah Amdur, Chief Consultant, Care Management and Social Work Service (10P4C), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–6780. (This is not a toll free number.)
This document adopts as a final rule without substantive change a proposed rule amending VA regulations. On March 16, 2012, VA published in the
Interested persons were invited to submit comments to the proposed rule on or before May 15, 2012, and we received no comments. Therefore, we make no changes based on comments. However, we make minor changes from the proposed rule in certain places in §§ 60.15 and 60.20, because the phrases “VA health care facility,” “VA medical center,” and “VA medical facility” were inadvertently used interchangeably with regards to: Where an application for temporary lodging may be obtained and where a completed application must be returned (§ 60.15(a)); the location of non-utilized beds in VA facilities that may serve as temporary lodging (§ 60.15(b)(3) and § 60.20(d)); the type of VA facility whose Director may determine whether hotels or motels are appropriate temporary lodging (§ 60.15(b)(4)); and where a denied application may be referred (§ 60.15(b)(7)). The intended usage was to refer only to a “VA health care facility” throughout the proposed rule, because this phrase broadly encompasses all VA facilities that are under the jurisdiction of the Veterans Health Administration and VA. By contrast, a “VA medical center” is a specific type of “VA health care facility” that distinctly provides, among other things, 24-hour inpatient care. VA has never limited, and it was not the intent of the proposed rule to limit criteria for temporary lodging, to only be considered in the context of a “VA medical center.”
Use of the broader phrase “VA health care facility” in this final rule reflects current and longstanding VA practice, and the proposed rule emphasized that it would generally reflect current VA practice. See 77 FR 15650, 15652–15653. Additionally, use of the phrase “VA health care facility” is consistent with 38 CFR part 60 prior to this revision, versus the phrase “VA medical facility.” The public therefore should be familiar with the phrase “VA health care facility,” as well as the intent of the proposed rule. Indeed, the fact that we received no comments on the inadvertent usage of the phrases “VA medical center” and “VA medical facility” in the proposed rule indicates that the public did not understand these phrases to propose new limitations regarding temporary lodging provided by VA.
Changes in this final rule to consistently use “VA health care facility” additionally do not broaden substantive criteria for temporary lodging from the proposed rule, because the proposed rule accurately used the phrase “VA health care facility” when describing substantive criteria to the public. Therefore, consistent use of the broader phrase “VA health care facility” in the final rule is not a substantive change from the proposed rule that requires an additional notice and comment period. For instance, the proposed rule clearly stated in § 60.2 that Fisher Houses and other temporary lodging may be located at or near a “VA health care facility.” See § 60.2 as proposed, and unchanged by this final rule, for the definitions of “Fisher House” and “Other temporary lodging,” which base location of temporary lodging at or near a “VA health care facility.” The substantive criteria in proposed § 60.2, related to where temporary lodging may be located, correctly stated that temporary lodging may be located at or near a VA health care setting that is broader than a “VA medical center.” Proposed § 60.15(a), however, incorrectly stated that applications for temporary lodging could be obtained from and returned to only “VA medical center[s].” Proposed § 60.15(a) intended to alert the public that applications for temporary lodging can be obtained from and returned to those places where temporary lodging may be located. Therefore, the final rule must accurately indicate that applications for temporary lodging may be obtained from and returned to a “VA health care facility,” and not only obtained from and returned to a “VA medical center.” See § 60.15(a) as
As another example, the proposed rule clearly stated in § 60.15(b)(5) that “the person responsible for coordinating the Fisher House and other temporary lodging program(s) at the VA health care facility of jurisdiction is responsible for making decisions to grant temporary lodging.” The substantive criteria in proposed § 60.15(b)(5), related to VA staff that decide whether to grant temporary lodging, correctly stated that such staff may work in a VA health care setting that is broader than a “VA medical center.” Proposed § 60.15(b)(7), however, incorrectly stated that if temporary lodging is denied, then the application would be referred to VA staff only “at the VA medical center of jurisdiction to determine if other arrangements can be made.” Proposed § 60.15(b)(7) intended to alert the public that if an application is denied, the application will be referred back to the setting where the original decision was made to determine if other lodging options are available. Therefore, the final rule must indicate that if an application for temporary lodging is denied, that VA will refer the application to a “VA health care facility of jurisdiction” to determine other options, and not limit the referral of the application to only a “VA medical center of jurisdiction.” See § 60.15(b)(7) as revised by this rulemaking, versus § 60.15(b)(7) as proposed. Accurately stating in the final rule that a denied application for temporary lodging is referred back to a “VA health care facility” versus a “VA medical center” does not affect the availability of other lodging options when temporary lodging is denied, and does not affect any other substantive criteria such as eligibility for temporary lodging or access to temporary lodging. The change in this final rule in § 60.15(b)(7) to use the phrase “VA health care facility,” therefore, is not substantive but rather merely standardizes the use of the correct and intended phrase, where otherwise multiple phrases will be confusing.
All other changes to use the broader phrase “VA health care facility” in §§ 60.15 and 60.20 are similarly not substantive, because they merely standardize the use of the correct and intended phrase, where otherwise multiple phrases will be confusing. We amend the language of the proposed rule to remove all mention of a “VA medical center” or “VA medical facility,” and replace those phrases with “VA health care facility” in this final rule.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and above, VA is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule without substantive change.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 38 CFR 60.15, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), no new or revised collections of information are associated with this final rule. The information collection requirements for § 60.15 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 2900–0630.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This final rule directly affects only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Any impact on small entities involved in the lodging industry would be indirect and insignificant. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.007, Blind
Health care, Housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel, Veterans.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA is revising 38 CFR part 60 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1708.
This part applies to Fisher House and other temporary lodging furnished by VA while a veteran is experiencing an episode of care at a VA health care facility.
For the purposes of this part:
(1) An appointment at a VA health care facility to receive health care or a compensation and pension examination.
(2) Extended outpatient treatment, such as treatment associated with organ transplant, chemotherapy, or radiation.
(3) Hospitalization for a critical injury or illness; where death is imminent; or where a veteran is unable to make medical decisions for him/herself and the accompanying individual is authorized to make such decisions on the veteran's behalf.
(1) Lodging at a temporary lodging facility, other than a Fisher House, located at a VA health care facility (generally referred to as a “hoptel”);
(2) A hotel or motel;
(3) Non-utilized beds at a VA health care facility designated as lodging beds; and
(4) Other donated lodging to be used on a temporary basis in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 1708.
Whenever VA receives, from a source other than the Fisher House Foundation, an undesignated donation of lodging to be used on a temporary basis, the lodging will be designated as if it were Fisher House lodging or be treated as other temporary lodging based upon the types of lodging available in the area. If VA receives a gift that specifies the terms of the lodging provided, VA will use the lodging provided in the manner specified by the donor.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(1) Medically stable and capable of self-care; or
(2) Accompanied by an individual who is able to provide all necessary care.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) For Fisher House lodging, to the Fisher House Manager at the VA health care facility of jurisdiction.
(2) For other temporary lodging, to the temporary lodging program coordinator at the VA health care facility of jurisdiction.
(b)
(2) Temporary lodging is granted on a space-available basis, with some consideration given to the compatibility of the applicant(s) and the room(s) available. For example, although VA may require an applicant to share a room with another veteran's accompanying individual, VA would not do so if the persons affected are not the same gender.
(3) Temporary lodging at a VA health care facility, such as non-utilized beds in a VA health care facility, may be made available only if not barred by law and if the Director of the VA health care facility determines that such action would not have a negative impact on patient care. Non-utilized beds provided to accompanying individuals must be reassigned to VA patients when necessary.
(4) The Director of the VA health care facility of jurisdiction will determine whether local funding is sufficient to allow the use of temporary lodging in hotels and motels.
(5) Subject to all criteria provided in this part, the person responsible for coordinating the Fisher House and other temporary lodging program(s) at the VA health care facility of jurisdiction is responsible for making decisions to grant temporary lodging. These decisions are considered to be final VA decisions concerning individual medical treatment plans and the scheduling and use of VA lodging facilities, and they are not appealable to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
(6) If VA denies an application for one type of lodging, such as at a Fisher House, the application will be considered for other temporary lodging and vice versa, if the applicant is eligible.
(7) If VA denies the application for all types of temporary lodging, VA will refer the application to a VA social worker at the VA health care facility of jurisdiction to determine if other arrangements can be made.
(c) Costs for Fisher House and other temporary lodging under this part are borne by VA.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under OMB control number 2900–0630)
Fisher House or other temporary lodging may be awarded for the following periods:
(a) While the veteran is undergoing an episode of care.
(b) While the veteran is hospitalized, if the veteran is admitted to a VA health care facility while undergoing an outpatient episode of care for which temporary lodging was already provided.
(c) As extended by the appropriate VA clinician or social worker based on an emergency situation or unforeseen circumstances.
(d) For an indefinite period for accompanying individuals who are visiting veterans hospitalized for an indefinite period, provided that the accompanying individual is not using a VA health care facility bed. Whether a veteran is hospitalized for an indefinite period will be based upon the treatment or rehabilitation needs of the veteran as determined by the veteran's health care team.
(e) Temporary lodging may be furnished the night before the day of a scheduled appointment if, the veteran leaving home after 8:00 a.m., would be unable to arrive at the VA health care facility by the time of the scheduled appointment.
(f) Temporary lodging may be furnished the night of the scheduled appointment if, after the appointment, the veteran would be unable to return home before 7:00 p.m. When a veteran is undergoing outpatient treatment or procedures the veteran and accompanying individual(s) may be furnished temporary lodging for the duration of the episode of care subject to limitations described in this section.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a revision to Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in order to include in the SIP amendments to relating to control of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the manufacture, sale, use, or application of adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents. The SIP revision also includes amendments to the definitions in the general provisions in 25
This final rule is effective on October 26, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0617. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by email at
On August 26, 2011, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) which proposed approval of Pennsylvania's adhesives and sealants regulations in order to control emissions of VOCs from the manufacture, sale, use, or application of adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents (76 FR 53369, August 26, 2011). The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through PADEP on January 12, 2011.
Pennsylvania's SIP submission contains amendments to
The SIP revision is based on the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule, “OTC Model Rule For Adhesives and Sealants,” dated 2006, which was based on the 1998 California Air Resources Board (CARB) reasonably available control technology (RACT) determination which applied to both the manufacture and use of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers, or sealant primers, in both industrial and manufacturing facilities and in the field. California Air Districts used this determination to develop regulations for this category. EPA addressed this source category with a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, EPA–453/R–08–005” in September 2008 (Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG).
EPA has determined that the SIP revision contains the required elements for a federally enforceable rule: Emission limitations, compliance procedures and test methods, compliance dates, and record keeping provisions. In comparison to the CTG, the OTC model rule and
EPA addressed a portion of the adhesives and adhesive primers category in the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG. EPA's Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG provides state and local air pollution control authorities information that may assist them in determining RACT for VOCs from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes. In developing this Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG, EPA, among other things, evaluated the sources of VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives application processes and the available control approaches for addressing these emissions, including the costs of such approaches. Based on available information and data, EPA provided recommendations for RACT for miscellaneous industrial adhesives. States can use the recommendations in the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG to inform their own determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOCs for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes in their particular nonattainment areas. The Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG does not impose any legally binding requirements on any entity nor are States required to adopt the approach that EPA sets forth in a CTG. It provides only recommendations for state and local air pollution control agencies to consider in determining RACT. State and local pollution control agencies are free to implement other technically-sound approaches that are consistent with the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations or are more stringent. Thus, whether or not the CTG expressly addressed the adhesives at issue here is not relevant for determining whether Pennsylvania's rule addressing those adhesives could be approved as part of the SIP.
Section 110(k) of the CAA provides that EPA shall approve a SIP revision submittal if it meets all of the applicable requirements of the CAA. The primary CAA requirement for the adhesives and sealants rule is that Pennsylvania set RACT for the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG category. For the reasons outlined in the NPR, EPA believes that Pennsylvania has fulfilled this requirement (76 FR 53369). To the extent that Pennsylvania's rule goes beyond the recommendation of the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG, it does not prohibit EPA from approving this rulemaking action. The OTC developed a model rule as part of a regional effort to attain and maintain the eight-hour ozone standard and reduce eight-hour ozone levels. States opting to
EPA is approving the Pennsylvania SIP revision which includes amendments to
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to pertaining to Pennsylvania's control of VOCs from adhesives and sealants may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland pertaining to “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing.” The SIP revision establishes new volatile organic compounds (VOC) content limits and standards for coating and cleaning solvents used in vehicle refinishing. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on October 26, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0468. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or by email at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On May 8, 2012, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a formal SIP revision (#12–04) to EPA pertaining to regulation COMAR 26.11.19.23 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing.” The SIP revision establishes new volatile organic compounds (VOC) content limits for coating and cleaning solvents used in vehicle refinishing and standards for coating application, work practices, monitoring, and recordkeeping. On July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40550), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Maryland's revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.23 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing” as adopted by the State of Maryland on March 26, 2012. The compliance date of the adopted regulation COMAR 26.11.19.23 is July 1, 2013.
The SIP revision establishes VOC content limits for automotive coatings and cleaning solvents used in vehicle refinishing and standards for coating application, work practices, monitoring, and recordkeeping. Maryland's revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.23 include establishing VOC content limits for 11 categories of automotive coatings and two categories of cleaning solvents which are used in the preparation, application, and drying phases of vehicle refinishing. All affected sources must comply with provisions of this regulation by July 1, 2013. This SIP revision will achieve emission reductions of VOC throughout the State of Maryland.
Maryland's revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.23 are based on the 2009 “Model Rule for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations” (MVMERR) developed in conjunction with member states of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). The MVMERR and the adopted regulation COMAR 26.11.19.23 comply with EPA's requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 59, subpart B “National Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings” and 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHHH “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources.” Specific information concerning revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.23 and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and the Technical Support Document for this action, and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
EPA is approving Maryland's revisions to regulation COMAR 26.11.19.23 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing” adopted by MDE on March 26, 2012, as a revision to the Maryland SIP. The compliance date for this regulation is July 1, 2013.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, which approves revisions to regulation COMAR 26.11.19.23, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to approve changes to the Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Division of Air Pollution Control to EPA on May 12, 2011. The May 12, 2011, SIP revision modifies Mississippi's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations to incorporate by reference, into the Mississippi SIP, federal NSR PSD requirements for the fine particulate matter (PM
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0081. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information regarding the Mississippi SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404) 562–9352; email address:
EPA is taking final action on portions of Mississippi's May 12, 2011, SIP revision to incorporate by reference (IBR)
On July 23, 2012, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve the aforementioned changes to Mississippi's NSR PSD program at APC–S–5.
EPA finalized the NSR PM
In the NSR PM
In the NSR PM
In addition to direct PM
The PM
PSD increments prevent air quality in clean areas from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS. Therefore, an increment is the mechanism used to estimate “significant deterioration”
As mentioned above, the SMC numerical value represents a threshold of insignificant (
Recently, the Sierra Club filed suit challenging EPA's authority to implement the PM
EPA is taking final action to approve into the Mississippi SIP portions of the State's May 12, 2011, SIP revision, which IBR the PSD permitting regulations to implement the PM
Regarding the condensable provision, in light of Mississippi's request in its June 26, 2012, letter and EPA's intention to amend the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” as discussed in the March 12, 2012, correction rulemaking, EPA is not taking final action to approve the terminology “particulate matter emissions” into the Mississippi SIP (at APC–S–5) for the condensable provision in the definition of “
As stated in Mississippi's May 12, 2011, SIP revision, NO
With respect to the PM
Regarding the SILs and SMC, EPA's authority to implement the PM
In response to the litigation, EPA requested that the court remand and vacate the new regulatory text at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) concerning the implementation of SILs for PM
EPA is taking final action to approve portions of Mississippi's May 12, 2011, SIP revisions (with the exception of the term “particulate matter emissions” and the SILs threshold and provisions) that IBR federal regulations amended in the NSR PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to approve changes to the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to EPA on May 2, 2011. The May 2, 2011, SIP revision modifies Alabama's New Source Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs to adopt into the Alabama SIP federal NSR PSD requirements for the fine particulate matter (PM
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0079. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,
For information regarding the Florida SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
I. Background
II. This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
EPA is taking final action to approve portions of Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP revision to adopt federal NSR permitting requirements and federal general and transportation conformity regulations into the SIP. Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP revision includes changes to the regulations at Administrative Code for Division 3: Chapter 335–3–14—
EPA is not approving in this action: (1) NNSR changes amended at rule 335–3–14–.05;
On August 6, 2012, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve the aforementioned changes to Alabama's SIP.
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is now taking final action to approve the changes to Alabama's SIP as provided in EPA's August 6, 2012, proposed rulemaking. A summary of the background for today's final action is provided below. EPA's August 6, 2012, proposed rulemaking contains more detailed information regarding the Alabama SIP revision being approved today and the rationale for today's final action. Detailed information regarding the PM
On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the NSR PM
In the NSR PM
In the NSR PM
The PM
PSD increments prevent air quality in clean areas from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS. Therefore, an increment is the mechanism used to estimate “significant deterioration”
The primary purpose of the SILs is to identify a level of ambient impact that is sufficiently low relative to the NAAQS or increments that such impact can be considered insignificant or
In the PM
The October 20, 2010, rule established the PM
As mentioned above, the SMC numerical value represents a threshold of insignificant (
Recently, the Sierra Club filed suit challenging EPA's authority to implement the PM
In addition to the adoption of NSR Federal regulations mentioned above, Alabama's SIP revision updates the State's General and Transportation Conformity regulations
As was noted previously, EPA proposed approval of portions of Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP revision on August 6, 2012, and EPA received one off-topic comment. Although EPA is not obligated to respond to off-topic comments, EPA is nonetheless providing a brief response below. The complete comment is available in the docket for this rulemaking action, but a summary of the comment is as follows. The Commenter states that s/he “would like to see the science research they put into this” and suggested that, “an independent review board to look into this with an unbiased opinion.” As was explained in the detailed August 6, 2012, proposed rulemaking and supporting docketed information, EPA is obligated to take action on Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP revision. The technical and legal basis for today's action was
EPA is now taking final action to approve into the Alabama SIP portions of the State's May 2, 2011, SIP revision to adopt the PSD permitting regulations to implement the PM
With respect to the PM
Regarding the SILs and SMC, EPA's authority to implement the PM
In response to the litigation, EPA requested that the court remand and vacate the new regulatory text at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) concerning the implementation of SILs for PM
Finally, EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's changes to the State's General and Transportation conformity regulations to be consistent with Federal regulations. These changes include updating the IBR date at 335–3–17.02 to July 1, 2010, to be consistent with Federal General Conformity rules (as promulgated on April 5, 2010) and to update the Transportation Conformity SIP at 335–3–17–.01 effective May 23, 2011, to include EPA's transportation conformity rule updates regarding
EPA is taking final action to approve portions of Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP revisions (with the exception of the term “particulate matter emissions,” the NNSR revisions and the SILs threshold and provisions) adopting federal regulations amended in the NSR PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of glufosinate ammonium in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4) and Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective September 26, 2012 except for the addition of the tolerance for Fruit, stone, group 12–12 to the table in § 180.473 (a), which is effective October 22, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 26, 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–2009–0813, is available at
Sidney Jackson, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7610; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
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 or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0813 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 26, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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 (excluding any CBI) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
•
•
•
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, EPA is: (1) Correcting certain crop definitions to comply with current Agency policies; (2) establishing tolerance levels for certain commodities other than the proposed levels; (3) removing the proposed tolerance for plum, prune, dried; (4) modifying the crop group tolerances requested to the revised and expanded citrus fruit group 10–10, pome fruit group 11–10 and stone fruit group 12–12; and 5) revising the tolerance expression for all established commodities to be consistent with current Agency policy. The reasons 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 glufosinate ammonium including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with glufosinate ammonium follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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.
Technical grade glufosinate ammonium has low toxicity in the oral, dermal, inhalation studies and is not an eye or dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer.
Subchronic toxicity studies in rats showed inhibition of glutamate synthetase and lead the Agency to conclude that the changes in brain glutamine synthetase activity are of significant concern for possible neurotoxicity and/or expression of clinical signs. Observed alterations in liver and kidney glutamate synthetase are considered an adaptive response. The primary effects in the mouse subchronic study were increased liver and kidney weights with increases in serum aspartate amino transferase and alkaline phosphatase.
Additional toxicity testing was conducted with the L-isomer of glufosinate ammonium, and degradates glufosinate propanoic acid (MPP), and 2-acetamido-4-methylphosphinico-butanoic acid (NAG). These compounds, tested in subchronic rat, mouse, and dog studies, and in developmental toxicity studies in rat and rabbit, are generally less toxic than the parent compound. However, L-isomer of glufosinate ammonium was found to be slightly more toxic than the racemic parent compound. This finding is not concern since this isomer is included in the toxicity testing of the parent compound at the levels in the technical material.
In chronic studies in the rat, inhibition of brain glutamine synthetase, increased mortality, and increased occurrence of retinal atrophy were noted, as were increased liver and kidney weights. In the mouse, increased mortality was noted, as were changes in glucose levels consistent with changes in glutathione levels. Increased mortality and electrocardiogram alterations were observed in dogs. The developmental toxicity study in the rat produced dilated renal pelvis and/or hydroureter in the fetuses at levels that produced significant increases in hyperactivity and vaginal bleeding in dams. In the rabbit, decreased fetal body weight and increased mortality were observed at 20 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), while in rabbit dams, decreased food consumption, body weight, and body weight gain were observed at 20 mg/kg/day. Since increased fetal mortality was observed in the presence of less severe maternal
The reproductive toxicity study in rats indicated postnatal developmental toxicity at the highest dose tested in the form of decrease in viable pups. No parental toxicity was seen at the highest dose tested. Since pup mortality was observed in the absence of parental toxicity, there is evidence of
There were indications of neurotoxicity in several studies. Of particular concern is that the developmental neurotoxicity study demonstrated alterations in brain morphometrics in the adult offspring exposed
There is no concern for immunotoxicity based on an adequate database.
There is no concern for mutagenic activity in several available studies including: Salmonella E. Coli,
Glufosinate ammonium was classified as “not likely to be a human carcinogen.” There was no evidence of a treatment-related increase in tumors in either rats or mice.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by glufosinate ammonium as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
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 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 glufosinate ammonium used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for glufosinate ammonium for females 13 through 50 years old. In estimating acute dietary exposure assessment of glufosinate ammonium, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM–FCID
As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues for all established and recommended tolerances along with default processing factors, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) assumptions.
ii.
As to residue levels in food, EPA used anticipated residues based on average residue levels from field trial studies. The DEEM default processing factors were used for all commodities except apple juice, pear juice, grape juice, and raisins, for which factors derived from the processing studies were used in the assessment. One hundred percent crop treated values were used for all proposed new uses and some registered uses. Average PCT estimates were used in the chronic dietary analysis for crops that are currently registered for glufosinate ammonium if available.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the average PCT for existing uses as follows: Almond: 15%; blueberry: 5%; field corn, 5%; grape, 15%; pecan, 1%; potato, 10%; soybean, 1%; walnut, 10%; canola, 25%; cotton, 5%; filbert, 10%; pistachio, 20%; and rice, 1%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which glufosinate ammonium may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Environmental fate studies indicate glufosinate ammonium is relatively stable and is very mobile. The main degradation pathway in water and soil is via microbial action, metabolizing primarily to CO
Previous analyses for glufosinate ammonium demonstrated that the maximum acute and chronic EDWCs result from surface water estimates arising from the rice use; the surface water values for rice are nearly an order of magnitude higher than any surface or ground water values for any other use of glufosinate ammonium. Therefore, a comprehensive refinement of the drinking water assessment for the rice use of glufosinate ammonium, should be protective of other uses.
The Agency estimated acute EDWCs for glufosinate ammonium and MPP using the Tier I Rice Model and Pesticide Flooded Application Model (PFAM) [version 0.70] without the index reservoir. To estimate chronic EDWCs, the acute concentrations from PFAM without the index reservoir were assumed to degrade over a 365-day period, using aerobic aquatic degradation half-lives; thus allowing calculation of average concentrations over a one-year period. This method results in chronic values approximately 76% and 3% lower than the acute values for glufosinate-ammonium and MPP, respectively.
The EDWCs for surface water are expected to be 390 parts per billion (ppb) for glufosinate and 183 ppb for MPP for acute exposures. The EDWCs for surface water are expected to be 95 ppb for glufosinate and 177 ppb for MPP for chronic exposures. The maximum chronic EDWC for rice for MPP is approximately 2X higher than the corresponding value for glufosinate: 177 and 95 ppb, respectively. Since MPP is considered less toxic than the parent compound and should not be aggregated with the parent, EPA concluded that if the EDWCs for MPP are not significantly greater than those for glufosinate, the risk assessment for the parent will be protective of any toxicity associated with exposure to MPP in drinking water. Given the estimated EDWCs for MPP concentrations are not likely to be more than twice the corresponding levels of glufosinate in drinking water, EPA concluded a quantitative risk assessment for MPP in drinking water is not needed. Accordingly, for purposes of acute and chronic dietary analyses, the recommended glufosinate EDWCs are 390 and 95 ppb, respectively.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 390 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 95 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Residential handler exposure is expected to be short-term. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. Dermal and inhalation exposures are possible for applications from mixing/loading/applying liquids with a hose-end sprayer, a backpack sprayer, and a sprinkler can and applications for manually pressurized handgun. However, only the dermal route of exposure was included in the aggregate analysis since potential dermal risks are higher than potential inhalation risks and the EPA determined it is not appropriate to aggregate the dermal and inhalation exposures since the toxicity endpoints are different.
The Agency did not quantify post-application exposures. Post-application exposure is expected to be minimal. Any exposure to children via incidental non-dietary ingestion (i.e., hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth (turfgrass), and soil ingestion) after application to treated turf is expected to be low since
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found glufosinate ammonium to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and glufosinate ammonium does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that glufosinate ammonium does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
Since increased fetal mortality was observed in the presence of less significant maternal toxicity in the rabbit developmental study, there is evidence of
3.
i. Although all required studies for glufosinate ammonium have been submitted, the glufosinate ammonium database has a completeness issue in that the developmental neurotoxicity and the 28-day inhalation studies used for risk assessment did not demonstrate NOAELs, and LOAELs were used as endpoints. Therefore, the 10X FQPA safety factor was retained for use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. EPA has reduced the 10X safety factor when relying on a LOAEL in circumstances that suggest that the LOAEL is approaching a NOAEL (
ii. Although there were indications of neurotoxicity in several studies, the PODs and safety factors chosen for risk assessment are protective for these effects. The developmental neurotoxicity study showed altered brain morphometrics at the LOAEL, and this study is used in the weight-of-the evidence decision-making process for selection of an endpoint. Applying the 10X FQPA Safety Factor for the LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation, as well as the 10X inter- and intra-species uncertainty factors, to this LOAEL will be protective against possible neurotoxicity as indicated in the laboratory animal studies.
iii. Although there is evidence that glufosinate ammonium results in increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the developmental neurotoxicity study (rats), a prenatal developmental study (rabbits), and in the 2-generation reproduction study (rats), the PODs selected for risk assessment are protective for these effects because they are either based on clear NOAELs for the effects in young animals or they are based on a LOAEL adjusted by a 10X safety factor to account for the lack of a NOAEL in that study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessment was performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The chronic dietary exposure analysis was performed using anticipated residues from field trial data, processing factors, and PCT information. With limited monitoring data available, upper-bound assumptions were used to determine exposure through drinking water sources. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to glufosinate ammonium in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by glufosinate ammonium.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (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.
Glufosinate ammonium is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to glufosinate ammonium.
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 MOEs of 1,800 for the general population for mixer/loader/applicators. Because EPA's level of concern for glufosinate ammonium is an MOE of 1,000 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, glufosinate ammonium is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for glufosinate ammonium.
5.
6.
Two analytical methods have been validated by EPA for enforcement of the currently established tolerances: (1) Method HRAV–5A for the determination of glufosinate ammonium and glufosinate propanoic acid in/on apple, grape, almond, soybean seed, corn grain, and corn forage, and (2) Method BK/01/99 for determination of glufosinate ammonium,
Based on the similarity in the two methods and the results from the petition method validations (PMVs), EPA concludes that method BK/01/99 is a suitable method for enforcement of sweet corn, stone fruit, pome fruit, citrus fruit, and olive tolerances.
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.
The Codex has not established MRLs for glufosinate ammonium in or on olives and sweet corn commodities. However, for glufosinate ammonium in or on citrus fruit, pome fruit, and stone fruit, Codex has set MRLs of 0.1, 0.05, and 0.05 ppm, respectively. EPA is establishing tolerances in this action for citrus fruit, pome fruit, and stone fruit, at 0.15, 0.25, and 0.25 ppm, respectively. EPA cannot harmonize these tolerance values with the Codex MRLs because the lower MRLs could be exceeded with the uses petitioned-for in this action.
EPA modified/revised certain IR–4 proposed tolerances for glufosinate ammonium residues. Higher tolerance levels were established for citrus, pome fruit, stone fruit, and olives because EPA concluded that it was appropriate to sum the full level of quantification (LOQ) for each of the three residues of concern in situations where < LOQ residue levels were found. Sweet corn tolerances were amended based on results from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures the corn, sweet, K+CWHR tolerance proposed at 0.2 ppm will be established at 0.30 ppm, corn, sweet, forage tolerance proposed at 4.0 ppm will be established at 1.5 ppm. A separate prune tolerance was established as residues in this processed commodity are covered by the stone fruit group tolerance.
Additionally, EPA was petitioned for tolerances on citrus fruit group 10, pome fruit group 11, and stone fruit group 12. In the
Finally, EPA has revised the tolerance expression to clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of glufosinate ammonium not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of glufosinate ammonium (butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) monoammonium salt) and its metabolites, 2-(acetylamino)-4-(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl) butanoic acid, and 3-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) propanoic acid, expressed as 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid equivalents in or on corn, sweet, forage at 1.5 ppm; corn, sweet, kernels plus cob with husks removed at 0.30 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 6.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 0.15 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 0.25 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 0.25 ppm; and olive at 0.15 ppm.
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) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to 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 revised and added text reads as follows:
(a)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of cyazofamid in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. This regulation additionally removes several established tolerances that are superseded by tolerances established by this regulation. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective September 26, 2012 Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 26, 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–2011–0906, is available at
Laura Nollen, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7390; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
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 or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0906 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 26, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0906, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the proposed tolerance levels for several commodities. The Agency has also determined that the time-limited tolerance on basil, fresh should be
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 cyazofamid including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyazofamid 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.
Cyazofamid has a low order of acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It produces minimal but reversible eye irritation, is a slight dermal irritant, and is a weak dermal sensitizer. In subchronic toxicity studies in rats, the kidney appeared to be the primary target organ, with kidney effects including an increased number of basophilic kidney tubules and mild increases in urinary volume, pH, and protein. However, no adverse kidney effects were noted in chronic toxicity studies in rats. There were no toxicity findings up to the limit dose in a subchronic toxicity study in dogs; in the chronic dog toxicity study, increased cysts in parathyroids were observed in males at the limit dose for chronic toxicity testing.
There were no maternal or developmental effects observed in the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits and no maternal, reproductive, or offspring effects in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats. There was evidence of increased susceptibility following
There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or evidence of biologically relevant structural effects on the immune system in any study in the exposure database for cyazofamid. Skin lesions, which may be due to a systemic allergy, were observed in male mice in a carcinogenicity study. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat or mouse carcinogenicity studies and no evidence that cyazofamid is mutagenic in several
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cyazofamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
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 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 cyazofamid used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. EPA notes that the last final rule for cyazofamid, published in the
1.
i.
In estimating acute dietary exposure for females 13 to 49 years old, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994 to 1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, DEEM
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyazofamid and its degradates in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of cyazofamid and its degradates. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) model for surface water and the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–GROW) model for ground water, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of CTCA for acute exposures are estimated to be 136 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.18 ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for noncancer assessments are estimated to be 133 ppb for surface water and 2.18 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 136 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 133 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Cyazofamid is currently registered for use on turf at golf courses, sod farms, seed farms, college and professional sports fields, residential and commercial lawns, and on ornamental plants in landscapes and those grown in commercial greenhouses and nurseries. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For adult handlers, short-term dermal and inhalation exposures from mixing, loading, and applying cyazofamid in residential areas; for adults, short-term postapplication dermal exposure from contact with treated turf and ornamentals; and for children, short-term postapplication incidental oral exposure to treated turf, including hand-to-mouth activity, object-to-mouth activity, and soil ingestion. No POD was identified for dermal exposures to treated turf for children, since no toxicity was seen in the 28-day dermal toxicity study at the highest dose tested (1,000 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day)); therefore, dermal postapplication exposure scenarios were not assessed for children. Based on the residential use profile, adult handler and adult and child postapplication exposures to cyazofamid are expected to be short-term only. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found cyazofamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and cyazofamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cyazofamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for cyazofamid is complete except for immunotoxicity and subchronic neurotoxicity testing. Recent changes to 40 CFR part 158 imposed new data requirements for immunotoxicity testing (OCSPP Test Guideline 870.7800) and subchronic neurotoxicity testing (OCSPP Test Guideline 870.6200) for pesticide registration. However, the available data for cyazofamid do not show potential for immunotoxicity. Further, there is no evidence of neurotoxicity in any study in the toxicity database for cyazofamid. EPA does not believe that conducting neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies will result in a NOAEL lower than the regulatory dose for risk assessment. Consequently, the EPA believes the existing data are sufficient for endpoint selection for exposure/risk assessment scenarios and for evaluation
ii. There is no indication that cyazofamid is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility in the prenatal developmental study in rats, the Agency determined that concern is low because the developmental effect (increased bent ribs) is well identified with a clear NOAEL and LOAEL. In addition, other considerations indicating a low concern include the following: Increased bent ribs are considered a reversible variation rather than a malformation; the effect was noted only at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day and this endpoint was used to establish the RfD for females 13–49; and the overall toxicity profile indicates that cyazofamid is not a very toxic compound. Therefore, there are no residual concerns regarding developmental effects in the young.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to cyazofamid in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyazofamid.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (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.
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 MOEs of 2,200 for children 1–2 years old and 390 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for cyazofamid is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
5.
6.
An adequate analytical methodology is available to enforce the proposed tolerances. Cyazofamid and the metabolite CCIM are completely recovered (>80% recovery) using the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Multi-Residue Protocol D (without cleanup). In addition, a high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet detector (HPLC/UV) method is available for use as a single analyte confirmatory method.
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. The Codex has not established a MRL for cyazofamid.
EPA received comments from a private citizen to the notice of filing for cyazofamid, PP# 1E7929, objecting to the establishment of tolerances associated with the petition. In addition, the commenter noted several adverse effects seen in animal toxicology studies
EPA has found, however, that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to humans after considering these toxicological studies and the exposure levels of humans to cyazofamid. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that certain pesticide chemicals should not be permitted in our food. However, the existing legal framework provided by FFDCA section 408 states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.
Based on the data supporting the petition, EPA revised the proposed tolerances on several commodities, as follows: Basil, dried leaves from 80 ppm to 90 ppm; bean, succulent from 0.4 ppm to 0.5 ppm; bean, succulent shelled from 0.07 ppm to 0.08 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4A from 9.0 ppm to 10 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 from 0.40 ppm to 0.9 ppm. The Agency revised these tolerance levels based on analysis of the residue field trial data using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures. Additionally, the Agency has determined that the time-limited tolerance on basil, fresh at 12 ppm should be removed, as it will be superseded by the permanent tolerance on basil, fresh leaves.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-
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) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to 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 additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is revoking specific tolerances, in follow-up to canceled uses or where a commodity is no longer a significant feed item, for butylate, clethodim, dichlorvos, dicofol, isopropyl carbanilate, methanearsonic acid, methomyl, naled, primisulfuron-methyl, tralomethrin, and ziram, and the tolerance exemption for pine oil. However, EPA will not revoke the dicofol tolerances on tea and tolerance exemptions for rotenone, derris, or cube roots at this time. Also, EPA is making minor revisions to the tolerance expressions for dicofol, methanearsonic acid, methomyl, and tralomethrin, revising the nomenclature of specific tolerances for butylate, methomyl, and tralomethrin, and removing expired tolerances for certain pesticide active ingredients, in accordance with current EPA practice. In addition, EPA is reinstating popcorn tolerances for metolachlor to remedy an inadvertent omission and cover existing registrations.
This regulation is effective March 25, 2013. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 26, 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–2012–0171, is available at
Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–8037; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (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 or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0171 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 26, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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 (excluding 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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0171, 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
In this final rule, EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions, with the exception of the proposed revocations of tolerance exemptions for rotenone, derris, and cube roots, revocation of the dicofol tolerances on tea, and date of expiration/revocation proposed for the methomyl tolerance on grape. EPA is revoking tolerances for butylate, clethodim, dichlorvos, dicofol, isopropyl carbanilate, methanearsonic acid, methomyl, naled, primisulfuron-methyl, tralomethrin, and ziram, and the tolerance exemption for pine oil. The tolerance and tolerance exemption revocations for dichlorvos, naled, and pine oil are consistent with the recommendations in their individual Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) of 2006.
As part of the tolerance reassessment process, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of FFDCA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each RED for the active ingredient. REDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications, to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of many REDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242–2419; telephone number: 1–800–490–9198; fax number: 1–513–489–8695; Internet at
In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and/or tolerance exemptions because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in the United States. Those instances where registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of the pesticide active ingredient. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic commodities.
EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States.
Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies:
1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA section 408(d) or (e) order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.
2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer needed.
3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance meets the requirements under Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
This final rule does not revoke those tolerances or tolerance exemptions for which EPA received comments stating a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to be retained. Among the comments received by EPA, are the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
EPA did not receive any specific comments, during the 60-day comment period, on the following pesticide active ingredients: Butylate, clethodim, dichlorvos, (dicofol with the exception of tea), isopropyl carbanilate, naled, primisulfuron-methyl, tralomethrin, and ziram, and pine oil, and any of the active ingredients associated with the removal of expired tolerances. Therefore, with the exception of the changes described in the Agency responses to comments in this final rule, EPA is finalizing the amendments proposed concerning the pesticide active ingredients in the
EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is revoking tolerances as follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides, which is consistent with the tolerance recommendations made in certain REDs.
As stated in the
Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA.
2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.
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.
The Codex has not established a MRL for butylate, isopropyl carbanilate (also called propham), methanearsonic acid (and salts), metolachlor, naled, pine oil, primisulfuron-methyl, rotenone (or derris or cube roots), tralomethrin, or MRL for clethodim in or on soybean soapstock, or MRL for dichlorvos on tomato.
The Codex has not established a MRL for ziram per se, but has MRLs for total dithiocarbamates (which includes the dithiocarbamate ziram), determined as carbon disulfide. However, there is no MRL for total dithiocarbamates in or on blackberry.
The Codex has established a MRL for methomyl in or on grapes at 5 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). This MRL is the same as the tolerance established for methomyl on grapes in the United States.
The Codex has established MRLs for dicofol in or on cattle meat at 3 mg/kg, eggs at 0.05 mg/kg, poultry meat and cottonseed at 0.1 mg/kg, and cherries at 5 mg/kg. These MRLs and some others are the same as the tolerances established for dicofol in the United States.
The Codex has established MRLs for dicofol in or on various other commodities, including beans, dry at 0.1 mg/kg, citrus fruits at 5 mg/kg, hops, dry at 50 mg/kg, melons, except watermelon at 0.2 mg/kg, pecans and walnuts at 0.01 mg/kg, and peppers and summer squash at 1 mg/kg. These MRLs are all covered by U.S. tolerances at higher levels. These MRLs are different than the tolerances established for dicofol in the United States because of differences in use patterns and/or good agricultural practices.
In this final rule, EPA revokes specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action (i.e., a tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58
Pursuant to 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.
(a) * * *
(a)
(2) Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide dicofol, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only the sum of p,p-dicofol, 4-chloro-α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, its isomer o,p-dicofol, 2-chloro-α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, and its metabolites 4-chloro-α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(dichloromethyl)benzenemethanol and 2-chloro-α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(dichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of p,p-dicofol, 4-chloro-α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, in or on the commodity.
(a) * * *
(a)
(c)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) * * * (1) * * *
(a)
(2) A tolerance of 0.02 part per million with an expiration/revocation date of July 9, 2013 is established for residues of the insecticide tralomethrin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on food commodities (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food-handling establishments. Compliance with the tolerance level specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only the sum of tralomethrin, (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1R,3S)-2,2-dimethyl-3-(1,2,2,2-tetrabromoethyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate, and its metabolites (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1S,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of tralomethrin, in or on the commodity.
(i) The insecticide may be present as a residue from application of tralomethrin in food-handling establishments, including food service, manufacturing, and processing establishments, such as restaurants, cafeterias, supermarkets, bakeries, breweries, dairies, meat slaughtering and packing plants, and canneries.
(ii) The application shall be made in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: Application shall be limited to a general surface and spot and/or crack and crevice treatment in food-handling establishments where food and food products are held, processed, prepared, and served. General surface application may be used only when the facility is not in operation provided exposed food has been covered or removed from the area being treated. All food-contact surfaces and equipment must be thoroughly cleaned after general surface applications. Spot and/or crack and crevice application may be used while the facility is in operation provided exposed food is covered or removed from the area being treated prior to application. Spray concentration shall be limited to a maximum of 0.06 percent active ingredient. Contamination of food and food-contact surfaces shall be avoided.
(3) A tolerance of 0.02 part per million with an expiration/revocation date of July 9, 2013 is established for residues of the insecticide tralomethrin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on feed commodities (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in feed-handling establishments. Compliance with the tolerance level specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only the sum of tralomethrin, (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1R,3S)-2,2-dimethyl-3-(1,2,2,2-tetrabromoethyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate, and its metabolites (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1S,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of tralomethrin, in or on the commodity.
(i) The insecticide may be present as a residue from application of tralomethrin in feed-handling establishments, including feed manufacturing and processing establishments.
(ii) The application shall be made in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: Application shall be limited to a general surface and spot and/or crack and crevice treatment in feed-handling establishments where feed and feed products are held or processed. General surface application may be used only when the facility is
(a) When applied to growing crops, in accordance with good agricultural practice, the following pesticide chemicals are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance:
(1) Petroleum oils.
(2) Piperonyl butoxide.
(3) Pyrethrins.
(4) Sabadilla.
(b) When applied to growing crops, in accordance with good agricultural practice, the pesticides rotenone or derris or cube roots are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance. There are no U.S. registrations for use of rotenone, derris, or cube roots on food commodities as of March 23, 2011.
(c) These pesticides are not exempted from the requirement of a tolerance when applied to a crop at the time of or after harvest.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) amends its regulations relating to agency organization to reflect changes in reporting requirements for the Office of Inspector General, implemented in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Rebecca A. Fenneman, General Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573, (202) 523–5740,
The FMC amends Part 501 of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect a change in reporting requirements for Inspectors General of Designated Federal Entities, implemented in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, July 21, 2010 (Dodd-Frank). In Dodd-Frank, signed into law on July 21, 2010, Congress amended Section 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act), to provide, as pertinent here, that the term “head of the designated Federal entity” means “the board or commission of the designated Federal entity.” Public Law 111–203, sec. 989B (1)(A), 124 Stat. 1376, 1945. Because Section 8G of the IG Act provides that Inspectors General report to and are under the general supervision of the head of a designated Federal entity, the effect of the changed definition of “head of the designated Federal entity” in the Dodd-Frank amendment is that the FMC's Inspector General reports to and is under the general supervision of the entire Commission. This change in the reporting and supervision of the Inspector General necessitates minor amendments in the Commission's rules dealing with lines of responsibility (46 CFR 501.4), and functions of the organizational components of the Commission (46 CFR 501.5).
With respect to lines of responsibility, 46 CFR 501.4(a) is amended to eliminate the Office of Inspector General from the list of offices that report to the Chairman, and a new paragraph, 46 CFR 501.4(b), is added to reflect that the Inspector General reports to the Commission. With regard to functions of organizational components of the Commission, 46 CFR 501.5(a), which sets out the functions of the Chairman, is amended to eliminate the Office of Inspector General from the list of offices that receive management direction from the Chairman, to remove 46 CFR 501.5(a)(2) from this section, and to renumber 46 CFR 501.5(a)(3) and 46 CFR 501.5(a)(4) as 46 CFR 501.5(a)(2) and 46 CFR 501.5(a)(3) respectively. Finally, 46 CFR 501.5(b), which sets out the functions of the Commissioners, is amended by adding language providing that the Inspector General reports to and is under the general supervision of the Commission, and by adding section 501.5(b)(1) to describe the functions of the Office of Inspector General.
Because the changes made in this Final Rule address only internal agency organization, which do not require notice and public comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, this rule is published as final. This rule is not a “major rule” under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations, Organization and functions, Seals and insignia.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR part 501 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 551–557, 701–706, 2903, and 6304; 31 U.S.C. 3721; 41 U.S.C. 414 and 418; 44 U.S.C. 501–520 and 3501–3520; 46 U.S.C. 301–307, 40101–41309, 42101–42109, 44101–44106; Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 26 FR 7315, August 12, 1961; Pub. L. 89–56, 70 Stat. 195; 5 CFR Part 2638; Pub. L. 104–320, 110 Stat. 3870.
(b)
(b) * * * In addition, the Inspector General reports to and is under the general supervision of the Commission.
(1) Under the direction and management of the Inspector General, the
(2) [Reserved]
By the Commission.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement the management measures of Amendment 20A (Amendment 20A) to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule revises the wreckfish individual transferable quota (ITQ) program, by defining and reverting inactive wreckfish quota shares, redistributing reverted quota shares to remaining shareholders, establishing a cap on the number of wreckfish quota shares a single entity may own, and establishing an appeals process for redistribution of reverted wreckfish quota shares. The intent of this rule is to help achieve the optimum yield (OY) from the wreckfish commercial sector in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
This rule is effective October 26, 2012.
Electronic copies of Amendment 20A may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web Site at
Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727–824–5305, or email:
Wreckfish is part of the snapper-grouper fishery and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
On January 12, 2012, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 20A and requested comments (77 FR 1908). On March 30, 2012, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 20A and requested public comments (77 FR 19165). The proposed rule and Amendment 20A outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. Amendment 20A was approved by the Secretary of Commerce on April 6, 2012. A summary of the actions implemented by this final rule are provided below.
This final rule revises the wreckfish ITQ program, established in 1992, by defining and reverting inactive wreckfish quota shares, redistributing reverted quota shares to remaining shareholders, establishing a share cap, and establishing an appeals process for redistribution of reverted wreckfish quota shares. The intent of this rule is to achieve OY in the wreckfish commercial sector while maximizing harvest potential and not exceeding the annual catch limit (ACL).
When the Council took final action to approve Amendment 20A in December 2011, there were 20 wreckfish shareholders. Of those 20 shareholders, 13 were considered to be “inactive” and 7 “active” as defined in Amendment 20A. The 13 inactive shareholders held 28.18 percent of the shares, which would be redistributed among the 7 active wreckfish shareholders. After the Council took final action, several share transfers occurred which changed the distribution of shares in the wreckfish commercial sector of the snapper-grouper fishery. As of September 26, 2012, there are 6 active shareholders and 4 inactive shareholders. The active shareholders now hold 98.599 percent of the shares, and the inactive shareholders now hold 1.401 percent of the shares. The proposed rule and Amendment 20A state that 5 percent of the wreckfish quota shares will be set-aside, to resolve any appeals, for a period of 90 days starting on the effective date of the final rule. Due to the share transfers that occurred after the Council took final action to approve Amendment 20A in December 2011, only 1.401 percent of the shares remains “inactive” and thus are available to be reverted and redistributed. Therefore, only 1.401 percent is available as the set-aside to resolve any appeals, and NMFS will redistribute any shares remaining after the appeals process is complete. Any shares remaining after
NMFS received a total of 13 comments on Amendment 20A and the proposed rule, which include comments from individuals, including those in the recreational sector, restaurant and seafood businesses, and a consulting firm. Comments received regarding the value of the wreckfish ACL, the acceptable biological catch level, and the recreational wreckfish allocation, are related to actions contained in the South Atlantic Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit Amendment (Comprehensive ACL Amendment), and are not in Amendment 20A. The final rule to implement the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012), which became effective April 16, 2012, addressed all comments received on that amendment and its proposed rules. Specific comments related to the actions contained in Amendment 20A and the proposed rule and NMFS' respective responses, are summarized below.
The Council chose to redistribute latent (inactive) shares to active commercial participants to optimize commercial wreckfish harvest and minimize latent effort. The Council's decision allows those participants, who are more dependent on wreckfish harvest, to retain their current shares and to be eligible to receive shares from redistribution. The Council chose to redistribute inactive shares to wreckfish shareholders who reported wreckfish landings during the fishing years 2006/2007 through 2010/2011.
The creation of market power in seafood markets through concentration of wreckfish quota shares is unlikely because wreckfish directly competes against other domestically harvested and imported groupers, snappers, and other fish. Further, most of the important inputs (
A share cap implemented in a commercial sector operating under a catch share program customarily applies at the individual rather than the shareholder level. This approach prevents individuals from exceeding the share cap by being or becoming partial or full owners of other entities that also own quota shares, or more specifically share certificates in the case of wreckfish.
With respect to the 49-percent share cap alternative, although this alternative does not allow the historically largest harvester to maintain his recent level of landings, it does allow this individual to come relatively close, particularly if the individual chooses to buy additional shares up to the 49-percent cap. As such, the Council expected this individual to have sufficient quota shares to continue operations after redistribution of the inactive shares. Further, the other individuals were expected to have sufficient shares to maintain or even exceed their recent landings after redistribution of the inactive shares. Thus, the 49-percent share cap alternative was the most likely to ensure the commercial ACL is harvested and OY is attained. The Council thought it was equitable to allow shareholders with greater economic dependence on wreckfish landings to possess relatively more of the quota shares. Given the benefits of the 49-percent share cap alternative
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that the actions contained in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic and that they are consistent with Amendment 20A, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final 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 Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
One of the comments addressed in the Supplementary Information section, regarding the distribution of the latent shares that would be revoked, included economic implications and is also addressed here. This comment stated that the latent shares should be retired and not redistributed to other commercial shareholders with the exception that a small unspecified portion should be given to the recreational sector. The final rule for the Comprehensive ACL Amendment, which became effective on April 16, 2012 (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012), allocated 95 percent of the wreckfish ACL to the commercial sector and 5 percent to the recreational sector. Allocating some portion of latent shares to the recreational sector and retiring the rest would be inconsistent with the allocation established by the Council in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment, would not allow the commercial ACL to be harvested, and would result in reduced economic benefits to commercial small business entities. Therefore, no change has been made to this final rule as a result of this comment.
Because this final rule reduces the set-aside for appeals from 5 percent to 1.401 percent and, more importantly, inactive shareholders hold all of the quota shares being set-aside, active shareholders are not expected to experience any direct, adverse economic effects due to this action. Further, because the inactive shareholders have no gross revenue or profits from commercial fishing for wreckfish, the set-aside of their quota shares in the short-term to resolve appeals would not reduce their gross revenue or profit. Thus, the direct, adverse economic effects on shareholders as a result of this action and final rule will be less than what was estimated in the proposed rule. No other new information has been received that would affect the analysis of impacts on small entities. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648–0551. Public reporting burden for the appeals process regarding the redistribution of inactive wreckfish shares is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(3)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule.
NMFS adjusts the differential days-at-sea (DAS) rate for common pool vessels for fishing year (FY) 2012 due to overages of FY 2011 catch levels. This measure will help prevent FY 2012 catch levels from being exceeded. NMFS also announces the final amount of unused FY 2011 annual catch entitlement (ACE) carryover available to each sector in FY 2012.
Effective September 26, 2012, through April 30, 2013.
Brett Alger, Fisheries Management Specialist, (978) 675–2153.
Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan requires that a catch overage of a sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL) or total ACL, triggers an accountability measure (AM) for common pool vessels in the distinct Differential DAS Area where each stock is predominantly caught. The AM is a differential DAS adjustment to all Category A DAS used by common pool vessels, and is applied to the time spent in the applicable DAS counting area where a vessel fishes. The AMs account for the percentage by which the sub-ACL or total ACL is exceeded, and are meant to prevent overages of future catch levels. For example, an overage of the Atlantic halibut sub-ACL requires a differential DAS rate adjustment to be applied to common pool vessels fishing in the area(s) that past catch information shows the majority of the Atlantic halibut is caught. The AM regulation at 50 CFR 648.82(n) also requires applying an additional differential DAS counting factor in an area for a specific stock if the sub-ACL is exceeded again in a subsequent year, to account for both year's overages. For example, if the sub-ACL for Georges Bank (GB) winter flounder was exceeded in FY 2010 by 60 percent and triggered a differential DAS adjustment (1.6) in FY 2011, and the sub-ACL was exceeded again in FY 2011 by 30 percent (requiring a 1.3 differential), then in FY 2012, a differential DAS rate of 2.1 (1.6 × 1.3) would be applied.
Final FY 2011 sector and common pool catch information became available in June 2012. This information showed that in the commercial groundfish fishery (sector and common pool only), the sub-ACL for Atlantic halibut was exceeded by 29 percent. This requires NMFS to implement a differential DAS rate of 1.3 in the Offshore Gulf of Maine (GOM) and the Inshore GB Differential DAS areas as an AM for Atlantic halibut.
Final FY 2011 sector and common pool catch information shows that the sub-ACL for northern windowpane flounder was exceeded by 42 percent. The northern windowpane flounder overage occurred despite a differential DAS rate of 1.3 applied in FY 2011 due to an overage in FY 2010 of 27 percent. As a result, NMFS is required to implement a differential DAS rate of 1.8 (1.3 × 1.4) in the Offshore GB Differential DAS Area as a result of the consecutive FY 2010 and 2011 overages of northern windowpane flounder.
In addition to the commercial groundfish fishery information, NMFS has preliminary FY 2011 catch estimates for other components of the groundfish fishery, i.e., exempted fisheries, non-groundfish vessels (e.g., scallop vessels), and state-only permitted vessels. Based on these preliminary estimates of the other components of the groundfish fishery and final FY 2011 sector and common pool catch information, the total ACL for southern windowpane flounder was exceeded by 135 percent. This overage also requires a differential DAS adjustment for common pool vessels fishing in the area where the stock is predominantly caught. Therefore, a differential DAS rate of 2.4 will be applied to common pool vessels fishing in the Southern New England (SNE)/Mid-Atlantic (MA) Differential DAS Area as an AM for southern windowpane flounder. Further adjustments to the common pool differential DAS rate are possible based on final 2011 catch information for other components of the groundfish fishery.
The regulations allow each sector to carry over into the following fishing year up to 10 percent of its initial allocation for all but one groundfish stock. ACE for GB yellowtail flounder cannot be carried over because catch levels for this stock are set each year by the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. In addition, although the New Hampshire and Maine Permit Banks are allocated ACE for each FY, they are not eligible to carry over any amount of uncaught ACE. The following tables show the carryover for each Sector for FY 2011 based on final catch data.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment on these in-season DAS Differential and ACE carryover adjustments. Delay in the adjustments' effectiveness is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest and could hamper a fisherman's ability to make business decisions. Plus, the public has already been provided with an opportunity for notice and comment on potential adjustments, including the basis for such adjustments.
Notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. A delay implementing adjustments based on this information would prolong the time period that the fishery would be operating under a less restrictive differential DAS rate and could subject the vessels to FY 2012 overages, which would require even more restrictive AMs next year. Also, ACE carryover amounts may increase fishing opportunities available to each sector for FY 2012 or affect a sector's trading decisions for available ACE.
Common pool fishermen and sectors adjust their fishing plans based on available DAS and ACE. Delaying the effectiveness of the DAS Differential adjustments could hamper a common pool fisherman's ability to make effective business decisions based on the number of DAS available to them. Likewise, a delay in the ACE carryover adjustments for sectors could disrupt sector operations and prevent sectors from planning for the fishing year based on the amount of ACE available to them in FY 2012. FY 2011 ACE carryover may increase fishing opportunities available to each sector in FY 2012, especially if a sector has a small allocation for particular stocks. A delay in this action could result in foregone fishing opportunities during summer months when weather conditions are generally better. Because ACE may be traded between sectors, a delay in this action could also affect the ACE available to the market for trading, to the economic detriment of the fishery.
Lastly, a delay for prior opportunity for public comments is unnecessary and impracticable because the public was provided the opportunity to comment on the possibility of the anticipated adjustments, including the basis for such adjustments. Both the Framework Adjustment 47 final rule and the FY 2012 adjustment rule based on final sector rosters indicated that future adjustments may be made based on updated FY 2011 catch information and final sector rosters. Additionally, the Amendment 16 final rule indicated that differential DAS may be adjusted as an AM for the Common Pool. NMFS is making these adjustments now because FY 2011 catch information and sector final rosters only recently became available.
For the same reasons stated above, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness so that this final rule may become effective upon filing. Waiving this delay in effectiveness will help fishermen avoid exceeding FY 2012 catch limits. Finally, implementing this exemption as early as possible will provide fishermen and sectors the flexibility to strategize and adjust their plans for the remainder of the fishing year.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend the definition of “rural district” in NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual. The proposed amendment to the definition of “rural district” permits a geographic area to qualify as a rural district if, among other criteria, it has a total population that does not exceed the greater of 200,000 people or three percent of the population of the state in which the majority of the district is located. The current definition limits the rural district's population to 200,000, regardless of the population of the state containing the majority of the rural district.
Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Frank Kressman, Associate General Counsel, or Elizabeth Wirick, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or by telephone (703) 518–6545, or Robert Leonard, Director, Division of Consumer Access, Office of Consumer Protection, at the above address or by telephone (703) 518–1150.
The Federal Credit Union Act (Act), as amended by the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 (CUMAA), establishes requirements for membership in federal credit unions (FCUs). The Act gives the Board broad rulemaking authority over FCUs. 12 U.S.C. 1766(a). NCUA has implemented the Act's field of membership requirements in its Chartering and Field of Membership Manual (Chartering Manual), incorporated as Appendix B to Part 701 of NCUA's regulations. 12 CFR Part 701, Appendix B. NCUA also publishes the Chartering Manual as an Interpretative Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS). The current version of the Chartering Manual is set forth as IRPS 08–2, as amended by IRPS 10–1.
The Act provides that a community credit union is one organized around a “well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district.” 12 U.S.C. 1759(b)(3). In CUMAA, Congress also specifically delegated to the Board the authority to define by regulation the meaning of “well-defined local community” (WDLC) and “rural district” for FCU charters. 12 U.S.C. 1759(g).
Since CUMAA's enactment, the agency has gained significant experience in determining the criteria that establish an area as a WDLC or rural district by fully analyzing and processing numerous applications for community charter conversions and expansions. With the benefit of this extensive experience, the Board is concerned that the current population limit associated with establishing a rural district is too restrictive to fulfill the potential of that charter type and is limiting some FCUs' abilities to serve members in rural America.
The Chartering Manual currently includes two alternative sets of criteria to establish a rural district. One set of criteria is:
• The district has well-defined, contiguous boundaries;
• More than 50% of its population resides in areas the U.S. Census Bureau designates as rural; and
• The district's total population does not exceed 200,000.
• The district has well-defined, contiguous boundaries;
• It has a population density of no more than 100 people per square mile; and
• The district's total population does not exceed 200,000.
The Board believes that the limit of 200,000 persons may, in many instances, be too low to sustain a viable rural district FCU for several reasons. A rural area may often be anchored by a small hub city or town. A relatively high portion of individuals living in the rural area may periodically travel to that small hub for shopping, entertainment, medical care or financial services. That hub is important to the rural district for services, and it is important to be included in the rural district to enhance an FCU's economic potential. Unfortunately, when included in the rural district for chartering purposes, the hub could cause the area to exceed the 200,000 person population limit
Since first defining the term rural district in 2010, NCUA has seen only modest usage of the rural district charter. In fact, currently there are fewer than 50 FCUs operating as a rural district charter. For the reasons noted above, the Board believes a higher population limit for an area to be considered a rural district is appropriate. Rather than simply imposing a larger numerical limit to attempt to fit all circumstances, the Board proposes to permit an area to qualify as a rural district if its population does not exceed the greater of (1) 200,000; or (2) three percent of the total population of the state in which the majority of the district is located.
The Board believes the addition of the three percent of state population component is broad enough to enhance an FCU's ability to serve individuals living in rural America, who often suffer from a lack of affordable financial services. The Board also believes that this component is sufficiently limited to permit the designation of a rural district only in geographic areas that are truly rural. Specifically, the enhanced definition will only affect FCUs seeking a rural district located in states with a population above approximately 6.67 million. This is because three percent of the population of states with fewer than 6.67 million people would already be less than the current 200,000 person limit. There are 13 states of this size. This will protect against having a rural district that is unreasonably large in relation to the size and population of a state. The Board has considered using a higher limit but is concerned that a higher limit could result in overly large rural districts. For example, if the limit were set at four percent, then that would affect FCUs seeking rural districts located in states with populations greater than approximately 5 million. This is because four percent of the population of states with fewer than 5 million people would already be less than the current 200,000 person limit. There are 22 states of this size. NCUA believes this higher limit could result in rural districts disproportionately large in relation to states of this size. Nonetheless, NCUA would appreciate receiving comments on this aspect of the proposal. Additionally, even with the proposed amendment to the definition, the other criteria in the definition not related to total population remain in place and help ensure the definition as a whole does not exceed appropriate boundaries. Although NCUA is not proposing changes to the other criteria in the definition of rural district at this time, NCUA welcomes comments on these aspects of the definition as well.
For FCUs seeking a rural district that includes portions of two or more states, the three percent state population component will be based on the population of the state containing the majority of the proposed rural district. The majority of a multi-state rural district will be based on population rather than geographic areas. For example, if an FCU applies to serve a district with two counties and 100,000 residents in one state, plus one county and 200,000 residents in a second state, the combined population of 300,000 could not exceed three percent of the population of the second state.
FCUs with current rural district charters are grandfathered, but they would also be able to apply to amend their charters based on the proposed criteria. As with all community charters, FCUs serving more populated rural districts must develop business and marketing plans that demonstrate how they will serve their entire community.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (primarily those under $10 million in assets). This proposed rule does not impose any requirements on small credit unions. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or increases an existing burden. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320. For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not impose a new information collection requirement or increase an existing burden.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, NCUA proposes to amend Appendix B of 12 CFR part 701 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1789. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601,
2. Revise the fifth paragraph of Section V.A.2 of Chapter 2 of Appendix B to part 701 to read as follows:
The rural district requirement is met if:
• Rural District—
• The district has well-defined, contiguous geographic boundaries;
• More than 50% of the district's population resides in census blocks or other geographic areas that are designated as rural by the United State Census Bureau; and
• The total population of the district does not exceed the greater of 200,000 people or three percent of the population of the state in which the majority of the district is located; or
• The district has well-defined, contiguous geographic boundaries;
• The district does not have a population density in excess of 100 people per square mile; and
• The total population of the district does not exceed the greater of 200,000 people or three percent of the population of the state in which the majority of the district is located.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule and Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 12–2 with request for comments.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 87–2, as amended by IRPS 03–2, and two NCUA regulations that apply asset thresholds to grant relief from risk-based net worth and interest rate risk requirements. The amended IRPS would result in more robust consideration of regulatory relief for more small credit unions in future rulemakings. The amended regulations would grant immediate and prospective relief from regulatory burden to a larger group of small credit unions.
Send your comments to reach us on or before October 26, 2012. We may not consider comments received after the above date in making our decision on the proposed rule.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kevin Tuininga, Trial Attorney, Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428 or telephone: (703) 518–6543.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354, as amended (RFA), generally requires federal agencies to determine and consider the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities. Since 2003, the Board has defined “small entity” in this context as a credit union with less than $10 million in assets.
The Board is proposing this rule and IRPS to implement an updated measure of immediate and prospective regulatory relief for small FICUs across multiple applications, while avoiding undue risk to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). The Board believes the $10 million asset threshold used to define “small entity” for purposes of the RFA and for other provisions in NCUA's regulations where the Board has discretion to set asset thresholds is outdated. Increasing these thresholds will account for industry asset growth, consolidation, and inflation. It will provide an updated, reasonable, and historically consistent threshold for FICUs with respect to RFA coverage, regulatory compliance relief, and risk to the NCUSIF.
Congress enacted the RFA in 1980 and amended it with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–121. The RFA in part requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In 1981, the Board initially defined “small entity” for purposes of the RFA as any credit union with less than $1 million in assets.
When the Board updated its RFA threshold to $10 million, it noted that amendments to the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) in 1998 employed a $10 million threshold for multiple new provisions.
This proposed rule and IRPS 12–2 will amend IRPS 87–2 and partially supersede IRPS 03–2 by changing the definition of “small entity” to include credit unions with less than $30 million in assets. The increased threshold will cause NCUA to give special consideration to the economic impact of proposed and final regulations on an additional 1,603 small credit unions, bringing the total covered by the RFA to 4,041. IRPS 12–2 will also commit the Board to review and consider adjusting the RFA threshold every three years and will be incorporated by reference into 12 CFR 791.8(a).
The asset threshold used as part of the definition of “complex” credit union in 12 CFR 702.103(a) will be increased to $30 million. This update will increase by 1,603, to a total of 4,041, the number of FICUs removed from the definition of “complex” based on asset size alone. This increase eliminates the possibility that these FICUs could become subject to PCA provisions, despite having at least six percent net worth.
Finally, the proposed rule amends the asset range in 12 CFR 741.3(b)(5)(i), NCUA's interest rate risk rule. In 12 CFR 741.3(b)(5)(i)(B) and (C), the minimum asset threshold will be changed from $10 million to $30 million for the asset range governing whether a FICU must adopt a written interest rate risk policy and program based on its first mortgage loans and investment maturities. The asset threshold of $10 million in 12 CFR 741.3(b)(5)(i)(D), which determines whether a FICU is categorically excluded from interest rate risk policy and program requirements, will be changed to $30 million. This change will increase by 1,603, to a total of 4,041, the number of FICUs that are categorically exempt, based on asset size alone, from adopting an interest rate risk policy and program.
As with IRPS 12–2, the Board intends to review and consider adjusting the thresholds in 12 CFR 702.103(a) and 741.3(b)(5)(i) at least once every three years.
As a matter of policy, the Board believes the public should be given at least sixty days to comment on a proposed regulation.
The Board accounted for the following indicators in determining an appropriate threshold for the proposed rule and IRPS: (i) Industry percentages represented by FICUs with less than $10 million in assets at the time Congress implemented that threshold in various FCU Act provisions in 1998; (ii) the correlation of NCUSIF losses and FICU asset size; and (iii) FICU complexity and relative risk.
When Congress enacted a $10 million threshold in various provisions of the FCU Act in 1998, FICUs below that threshold represented 60.4 percent of all FICUs and 5.5 percent of total system assets. In 2003, when the Board increased its RFA threshold to $10 million, these credit unions represented approximately 52 percent of all FICUs.
From 1998 to 2012, the number of FICUs with less than $10 million in assets declined by 63 percent and their total assets declined by over 54 percent. Shifting industry characteristics resulted in fewer credit unions with fewer collective assets receiving regulatory relief as credit unions grew in size and smaller FICUs merged at a faster rate than large FICUs.
As a principal reference point for determining a new asset threshold, the percentages of FICUs, assets, net worth, and NCUSIF equity that apply to a range of asset thresholds in 2012 are shown below, shaded where they most closely correspond to the 1998 percentages for FICUs with less than $10 million in assets.
In addition to the percentages in this table, the Board notes that, assuming average industry asset growth, the average FICU with $10 million in assets in 1998 had $25.9 million in assets as of June 30, 2012.
Raising the RFA threshold to $30 million in assets will cause the percentage of FICUs under that threshold to be just over two percentage points less than the 1998 ratio. A $30 million threshold will also cause the percentage of system assets and net worth at FICUs under the threshold to be within two percentage points of the comparable 1998 ratios. Although raising the threshold to $40 million would also approximate asset size and net worth percentages from 1998, it would cause the percentage of FICUs included to exceed the 1998 percentage. The Board believes more incremental increases are appropriate and prudent, especially in light of the scheduled three-year review period.
The following table shows the history of failures among credit unions of various asset sizes that caused NCUSIF losses from 1998 through 2012.
Since 1998, 202 FICUs with less than $10 million in assets failed, costing the NCUSIF $116 million, which represents only 12.3 percent of total period losses. Over the same period, FICUs with less than $30 million in assets accounted for only 18 percent of losses, although accounting for 222, or over 84 percent, of period failures. In comparison, 40 FICUs with more than $30 million in assets failed, costing the NCUSIF $775.3 million or 82 percent of period losses. Thus, despite the higher number of failures among smaller FICUs, the NCUSIF experienced immensely greater losses from the far fewer FICUs with more than $30 million in assets that have failed. While the same general conclusion could be drawn for some thresholds higher than $30 million, the complexity index discussed below weighs against adjusting the threshold higher than $30 million based on loss history alone. These loss figures confirm that a $30 million threshold would likely not pose undue risk to the NCUSIF based on recent trends.
The Board also evaluated asset thresholds in terms of credit union complexity. As an approximate measuring tool, NCUA generated a complexity index for FICUs by assigning points based on factors such as a FICU's cash and liquidity positions, whether it holds real estate or member business loans, and whether it invests in credit union service organizations. FICUs with a higher index tend to engage in a greater range of complex activities, which generally decreases the justification for regulatory relief. Using the complexity index, the $25 million to $30 million asset size approximates the point below which, on average, FICU complexity begins to decrease at the fastest rate. FICUs above $30 million in assets have a median complexity index value of 14, which is twice the median complexity index value of FICUs below $30 million in assets.
Based on industry percentage data, NCUSIF loss history data, and FICU complexity data, a $30 million threshold is reasonable and historically consistent. A $30 million threshold provides roughly the same percentage today of FICUs defined as small in 1998, representing a slightly lower proportion of total system assets and net worth. A $30 million threshold also provides a significant degree of assurance that the NCUSIF would not be subject to undue risk based on loss history and credit union complexity. Finally, the three-year review period this proposed rule and IRPS requires will provide opportunity for more routine evaluation and supports increasing the threshold moderately at this time.
The Board believes a scheduled review period is advisable to account for evolving industry characteristics. A three-year review period provides a reasonable time within which to discern new trends in percentage, loss, and complexity data. In addition, a three-year period is consistent with the long-standing review period NCUA uses for all its regulations. It provides sufficient time to avoid the uncertainty of a continuous cycle of rulemakings and policy adjustments that a shorter period could create.
The Board acknowledges the proposed amendments and potential adjustments every three years would reestablish the variation that previously existed between the asset thresholds in multiple sections of the FCU Act and the asset thresholds in certain regulatory provisions and in NCUA's RFA definition of “small entity.” Unless the Board leaves the adjustable asset thresholds at $10 million, this variation is unavoidable. The Board does not have authority to amend the FCU Act or numerous NCUA regulations where the FCU Act specifies an applicable asset threshold or range. The Board believes the proposed updates and review period will provide immediate and prospective relief that outweighs concerns about threshold variation.
The change to the RFA threshold will ensure that regulatory relief will be more consistently and robustly considered for an additional 1,603 FICUs. A total of 4,041 FICUs with less than $30 million in total assets would come within the RFA's mandates. Future regulations, including the proposed emergency liquidity regulation, 77 FR 44503 (July 30, 2012), will be more thoroughly evaluated to determine whether FICUs below $30 million in assets should be exempted from some provisions or separately considered. The Board also intends to use the $30 million threshold when considering adjustments to examination schedules and developing policies and programs.
The proposed $30 million threshold for defining “complex” credit unions would categorically exclude 1,603 more FICUs from the definition of “complex” based on asset size alone, bringing the total FICUs excluded to 4,041. NCUA currently defines a “complex” credit union in 12 CFR 702.103 as one with more than $10 million in assets and with a risk-based net worth requirement of more than six percent. If a “complex” credit union fails its risk-based net worth requirement despite having at least six percent net worth, the credit union is subject to mandatory prompt corrective action (PCA) requirements.
By increasing the lower threshold in NCUA's interest rate risk rule to $30
Despite adopting the $10 million to $50 million asset range for interest rate risk purposes as recently as January 2012, the Board believes the risk analysis above supports increasing the lower threshold to $30 million. The increase would also remain consistent with the analysis in the preamble to the interest rate risk rule.
The RFA requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a proposed rule may have on a substantial number of small entities (currently defined by NCUA as credit unions with under $10 million in assets). In this case, the proposed rule and IRPS expands the number of credit unions defined as small entities under the RFA. It also expands the number of credit unions eligible for relief from risk-based net worth and interest rate risk requirements. The proposed rule and IRPS therefore will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of credit unions under $10 million in assets that are already eligible for this relief.
With respect to additional credit unions that would be covered by the RFA, a significant component of the rule will provide prospective relief in the form of special and more robust consideration of their ability to handle compliance burden. This prospective relief is not yet quantifiable. Further, the proposed rule will reduce compliance burden for these credit unions and, therefore, will not raise costs in a manner that requires a regulatory flexibility analysis or a discussion of alternatives for minimizing the proposed rule's compliance burden. Accordingly, NCUA has determined and certifies that the proposed rule and IRPS will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This proposed rule and IRPS would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule and IRPS will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
The Board's goal is to promulgate clear and understandable regulations that impose minimal regulatory burden. We request your comments on whether the proposed rule and IRPS is understandable and minimally intrusive if implemented as proposed.
Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Credit unions, Requirements for insurance.
Administrative practice and procedure, Sunshine Act.
For the reasons stated above, IRPS 12–2 amends IRPS 87–2 (52 FR 35231, September 18, 1987) and partially supersedes IRPS 03–2 (68 FR 31949, May 29, 2003) by revising the second sentence in Section II, paragraph 2 of IRPS 87–2 and adding a sentence to the end of Section II, paragraph 2 of IRPS 87–2 to read as follows:
2. * * * NCUA will designate credit unions with less than $30 million in assets as small entities. * * * Every three years, the NCUA Board will review and consider adjusting the asset threshold it uses to define small entities for purposes of analyzing whether a regulation will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the reasons discussed above, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 702, 741 and 791 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 702 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1790d.
2. Section 702.103 is amended by:
a. Removing “ten” in paragraph (a) and replacing it with “thirty”.
b. Removing “($10,000,000)” in paragraph (a) and replacing it with “($30,000,000)”.
3. The authority for part 741 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766(a), 1781–1790 and 1790d; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
4. Section 741.3 is amended by removing the number “10” and replacing it with “30” wherever it appears in paragraph (b)(5)(i).
5. The authority for part 791 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789 and 5 U.S.C. 552b.
6. Section 791.8 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
NCUA's procedures for developing regulations are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and NCUA's policies for the promulgation of rules and regulations as set forth in its Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 87–2 as amended by Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statements 03–2 and 12–2.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend its investment regulation to allow federal credit unions (FCUs) to purchase Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). This proposed amendment adds TIPS to the list of permissible investments for FCUs in part 703. The Board believes TIPS will provide FCUs with an additional investment portfolio risk management tool that can be useful in an inflationary economic environment.
Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public Inspection: You may view all public comments on NCUA's Web site at
Frank Kressman, Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518–6540, or J. Owen Cole, Jr., Director, Division of Capital Markets, Office of Examination and Insurance, at the above address or telephone (703) 518–6360.
The Board is proposing this rule because, after extensive research and analysis as discussed more fully below, it believes TIPS can be a valuable risk management tool for FCUs. The Board also believes FCUs have the ability to manage the risks associated with TIPS and can benefit from including them in their overall investment portfolio. In addition to analyzing the nature and performance of TIPS in the marketplace, NCUA has monitored FCU usage of TIPS through a long-term investment pilot program. The results of the pilot program are consistent with the Board's opinion that TIPS are an appropriate investment for FCUs and can be a valuable portfolio management tool when there are inflationary risks in the economy.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, NCUA proposes to make TIPS permissible under part 703.
TIPS
TIPS are currently a prohibited investment under part 703 because they reprice their value in response to changes in the CPI, and the CPI is a prohibited index for variable rate
The purpose of this provision is to reduce the basis risk between the interest earned on assets and the dividends paid on shares.
However, there is not always a perfect correlation between market interest rates and deposit/share rates. This can result in greater volatility for an FCU if it does not take action to manage this basis risk.
As noted, FCUs are permitted to invest in variable rate instruments where the index is tied to a domestic interest rate. Common domestic interest rates include the Fed Funds rate, Treasury rates, and LIBOR. Despite the common label “domestic interest rate,” each of these rates is not perfectly correlated with the others. There is certainly some measure of correlation, but an FCU can be exposed to earnings variability if it invests in variable rate assets tied to one rate, LIBOR rates for example, and prices its shares on another, Treasury rates for example.
Historically, the Board has prohibited variable rate instruments tied to non-domestic rate indices because of the basis risk for FCUs. While the Board remains concerned about basis risk, it recognizes that FCUs now have greater access to advanced asset-liability management tools that can identify and measure basis risk, and are therefore better equipped to manage such risk associated with adding CPI as a permissible index.
Allowing FCUs to hold TIPS in their investment portfolios adds no credit risk and allows them the option of minimizing the need for accurate inflation forecasting as a way to maintain the real value of their investment portfolios.
The Board believes the authority to invest in TIPS for the purpose of protecting against inflation risk can be a valuable part of an effective risk management program for FCUs that understand the risks. TIPS may not be appropriate for all FCUs. As with any investment, the decision to purchase TIPS should be based upon sound due diligence and a demonstrated effectiveness in managing risk. This proposal authorizes FCUs to purchase TIPS only. Other similar securities based on inflation indices currently available or available in the future that are not issued by the United States Treasury Department are not authorized by this rule. The current TIPS pilot program will expire in the event this proposal is eventually finalized by the Board.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a proposed rule may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under ten million dollars in assets). This proposed rule reduces compliance burden and extends regulatory relief while maintaining existing safety and soundness standards. NCUA has determined this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.
NCUA has determined that the requirements of this rule do not increase the paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
Credit unions, Investments.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board on September 20, 2012.
For the reasons discussed above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 703 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 703 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1757(7), 1757(8), 1757(15).
2. Revise § 703.14(a) to read as follows:
(a) Variable rate investment. A federal credit union may invest in a variable rate investment, as long as the index is tied to domestic interest rates and not, for example, to foreign currencies, foreign interest rates, or domestic or foreign commodity prices, equity prices, or inflation rates with the exception of Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. For purposes of this part, the U.S. dollar-denominated London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is a domestic interest rate.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Cessna Aircraft Company Model 500, 501, 550, 551, S550, 560, 560XL, and 650 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by multiple reports of smoke and/or fire in the tailcone caused by sparking due to excessive wear of the brushes in the air conditioning (A/C) motor. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine the accumulated hours on certain A/C drive motor assemblies; repetitive replacement of the brushes in the drive motor assembly, or as an option to the brush replacement, deactivation of the air conditioner; and return of replaced brushes to Cessna. We are proposing this AD to prevent the brushes in the A/C motor from wearing down beyond their limits, which could result in the rivet in the brush contacting the commutator causing sparks and consequent fire and/or smoke in the tailcone with no means to detect or extinguish the fire and/or smoke.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316–517–6215; fax 316–517–5802; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Christine Abraham, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE–119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316–946–4165; fax: 316–946–4107; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received more than 10 reports of smoke/fire (three reports of fire) in the tailcone of Cessna Aircraft Company Model 525, 550, and 560 airplanes, where investigation revealed brushes had worn beyond their limits on the part number (P/N) 1134104–1 A/
The subject part, P/N 1134104–1 A/C compressor motors, might also be installed on Model 500, 501, 551, S550, 560XL, and 650 airplanes. Therefore, those Model 500, 501, 551, S550, 560XL, and 650 airplanes might be subject to the unsafe condition revealed on Model 525, 550, and 560 airplanes.
We have reviewed the following service information:
• Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550, –0801 and On Maintenance Manual.
• Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 8, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550/551 Maintenance Manual.
• Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 20, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560, –0001 and On Maintenance Manual.
• Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 13, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560XL, (560XL –5001 thru –5500), (560XL –5501 thru –6000), (560XL –6001 and On) Maintenance Manual.
• Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 30, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 650 Maintenance Manual.
• Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 500/501, (–0001 thru –0349), (–0350 thru –0689) Maintenance Manual.
• Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 7, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model S550 Maintenance Manual.
The service information describes procedures for replacement of life-limited components including P/N 1134104–1 A/C compressor motor brushes.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if certain A/C compressor motors are installed, an inspection of the A/C compressor hour meter that has P/N 1134104–1 or 1134104–5 A/C compressor motors installed, repetitive replacement of the brushes, or deactivation of the A/C system with installation of a placard prohibiting use of the A/C system until replacement of the brushes as an option to the brush replacement. This proposed AD would also require, when the brushes are replaced, reporting of aircraft information related to the replacement of the brushes and sending the replaced motor brushes to Cessna Aircraft Company for two replacement cycles.
We consider this proposed AD interim action. The reporting data required by this proposed AD will enable us to obtain better insight into brush wear. The reporting data will also indicate if the replacement intervals we established are adequate. After we analyze the reporting data received, we might consider further rulemaking.
Model 525 airplanes are not subject to this proposed AD. We are currently considering requiring similar actions for these airplanes.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 1,987 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by November 13, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to the following Cessna Aircraft Company airplanes, certificated in any category.
(1) Model 500 and 501 airplanes, serial number (S/N) 0001 through 0689 inclusive.
(2) Model 550 and 551 airplanes, S/N 0002 through 0733 inclusive, and 0801 through 1136 inclusive.
(3) Model S550 airplanes, S/N 0001 through 0160 inclusive.
(4) Model 560 airplanes, S/N 0001 through 0707 inclusive, and 0751 through 0815 inclusive.
(5) Model 560XL airplanes, S/N 5001 through 5300 inclusive.
(6) Model 650 airplanes, S/N 0200 through 0241 inclusive, and 7001 though 7119 inclusive.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of smoke and/or fire in the tailcone caused by sparking due to excessive wear of the brushes in the air conditioning (A/C) motor. We are issuing this AD to prevent the brushes in the A/C motor from wearing down, which could result in the rivet in the brush contacting the commutator causing sparks and consequent fire and/or smoke in the tailcone with no means to detect or extinguish the fire and/or smoke.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days or 10 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first: Inspect the A/C compressor motor to determine whether P/N 1134104–1 or P/N 1134104–5 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the A/C compressor motor can be conclusively determined from that review.
If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any A/C compressor motor is found having P/N 1134104–1 or P/N 1134104–5: Within 30 days or 10 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, determine the hour reading on the A/C compressor hour meter as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD:
(1) Inspect the number of hours on the A/C compressor hour meter; and
(2) Check the airplane logbook for any entry for replacing the A/C compressor motor brushes with new brushes, or for replacing the compressor motor or compressor condenser module assembly (pallet) with a motor or assembly that has new brushes;
(i) If the logbook contains an entry for replacement of parts as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, determine the number of hours on the A/C compressor motor brushes by comparing the number of hours on the compressor motor since replacement and use this number in lieu of the number determined in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD; or
(ii) If through the logbook check you cannot positively determine the number of hours on the A/C compressor motor brushes as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, use the number of hours on the A/C compressor hour meter determined in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD or presume the brushes have over 500 hours time-in-service.
Using the hour reading on the A/C compressor hour meter determined in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace the A/C compressor motor brushes with new brushes at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the replacement of the A/C compressor motor brushes at intervals not to exceed every 500 hours time-in-service on the A/C compressor motor. Do the replacement in accordance with the applicable Cessna maintenance manual listed in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (i)(3)(vii) of this AD.
(1) Before or when the A/C compressor motor reaches a total of 500 hours time-in-service; or
(2) Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(3) Replace the A/C compressor motor brushes in accordance with the instructions in the applicable Cessna maintenance manual specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (i)(3)(vii) of this AD.
(i) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550, –0801 and On Maintenance Manual.
(ii) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 8, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 550/551 Maintenance Manual.
(iii) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 20, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560, –0001 and On Maintenance Manual.
(iv) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 13, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 560XL, (560XL–5001 thru –5500), (560XL–5501 thru –6000), (560XL –6001 and On) Maintenance Manual.
(v) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 30, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 650 Maintenance Manual.
(vi) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model 500/501, (–0001 thru –0349), (–0350 thru –0689) Maintenance Manual.
(vii) Subject 4–11–00, Replacement Time Limits, of Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 7, dated April 23, 2012, of the Cessna Model S550 Maintenance Manual.
(1) In lieu of replacing the A/C compressor motor brushes as required by this AD, deactivate the A/C as follows: Pull the vapor cycle A/C circuit breaker, install a placard by the A/C selection switch prohibiting use of the vapor cycle air conditioner, and document deactivation of the system in the airplane logbook referring to this AD as the reason for deactivation. While the system is deactivated, airplane operators must remain aware of operating temperature limitations as detailed in the specific airplane flight manual.
(2) If an operator chooses to deactivate the system and then later chooses to return the A/C to service: Before returning the A/C system to service and removing the placard, perform the inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, and do the replacements specified in paragraph (i) of this AD at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
For the first two A/C compressor motor brush replacement cycles on each airplane, send the brushes that were removed to Cessna Aircraft Company, Cessna Service Parts and Programs, 7121 Southwest Boulevard, Wichita, KS 67215. Provide the information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(6) of this AD, at the applicable
(1) The model and serial number of the airplane.
(2) The part number of the motor.
(3) The part number of the brushes, if known.
(4) The elapsed amount of motor hours since the last brush/motor replacement, if known.
(5) If motor hours are unknown, report the elapsed airplane flight hours since the last brush/motor replacement and indicate that motor hours are unknown; and
(6) The number of motor hours currently displayed on the pallet hour meter.
(7) If the replacement was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the replacement.
(8) If the replacement was done before the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an A/C compressor motor having P/N 1134104–1 or P/N 1134104–5, unless the inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done before further flight, and the replacements specified in paragraph (i) of this AD are done at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Operation of the A/C system is prohibited while flying with a special flight permit issued for this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christine Abraham, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE–119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316–946–4165; fax: 316–946–4107; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316–517–6215; fax 316–517–5802; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300–600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking through the honeycomb core closed with phenolic resin. This condition could result in extended debonding and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the rudder. This proposed AD would require inspecting to determine the serial number of a certain rudder and replacing the rudder with a new or serviceable rudder if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent extended de-bonding, which could result in loss of the rudder and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0006, dated January 12, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Following in-service findings reported by an operator, rudder laboratory investigation revealed the existence of a crack through the honeycomb core closed with phenolic resin. This condition if not detected and corrected, could result in extended de-bonding, which would adversely affect the structural integrity of the rudder. The loss of the rudder could lead to degradation of the handling qualities and reduces the controllability of the aeroplane.
Further investigations identified a batch of five affected rudders.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires [inspecting to determine the serial number (S/N) of a certain rudder and] the replacement of the five affected rudders with [new or] serviceable ones.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 170 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $14,450, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing $714,100, for a cost of $714,950 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by November 13, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, F4–605R, F4–622R, and C4–605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310–203, –204, –221, –222, –304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers, except those airplanes on which Airbus modification 08827 has been incorporated in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking through the honeycomb core closed with phenolic resin. This condition could result in extended debonding and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the rudder. We are issuing this AD to prevent extended de-bonding, which could result in loss of the rudder and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rudder having part number (P/N) A55471500, to determine if the rudder has serial number (S/N) HF1010, HF1036, HF1059, HF1061, or HF1064. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the serial number of the rudder can be conclusively determined from that review.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any rudder having S/N HF1010, HF1036, HF1059, HF1061, or HF1064 is found, before further flight, replace the rudder with a new or serviceable rudder, using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
Note 1 to Paragraph (h) of this AD: Rudders having S/N HF1010, HF1036, HF1059,
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a rudder P/N A55471500, having S/N HF1010, HF1036, HF1059, HF1061, or HF1064, on any airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012–0006, dated January 12, 2012, for related information.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
Comments are due November 26, 2012.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
•
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 (Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted the proposed regional Reliability Standard to the Commission for approval. The proposed regional Reliability Standard applies to generator owners, planning coordinators, distribution providers, and transmission owners in the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) Region and is designed to ensure the development of an effective automatic underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) program to preserve the security and integrity of the Bulk-Power System during declining system frequency events, in coordination with NERC's continent-wide UFLS Reliability Standard PRC–006–1.
2. The Commission also proposes to approve the associated violation risk factors (VRF) and violation severity levels (VSL), implementation plan, and effective dates proposed by NERC.
3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards that are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by NERC, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.
4. A Regional Entity may develop a Reliability Standard for Commission approval to be effective in that region
As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest, as required under the statute: (1) a regional difference that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, including a regional difference that addresses matters that the continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a regional Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System.
5. On April 19, 2007, the Commission accepted delegation agreements between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities.
6. NERC Reliability Standard PRC–006–1 establishes continent-wide design and documentation requirements for UFLS programs that arrest declining frequency and assist recovery of frequency following system events leading to frequency degradation.
7. On May 4, 2012, NERC petitioned the Commission to approve proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 and the associated VRFs and VSLs, effective dates, and implementation plan.
8. Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 has 23 requirements, each having an associated measure of compliance. The proposed standard also includes Figure 1, which includes a curve that establishes a threshold for setting underfrequency trip protection for generators in the portion of the NPCC Region in the Eastern Interconnection. NERC explains that the proposed regional Reliability Standard is based on the program characteristics defined within NPCC Directory #12 Underfrequency Load Shedding Program Requirements, which contains the criteria that govern the NPCC Automatic UFLS program that have been in place since June 26, 2009.
9. NERC also proposes VRFs and VSLs for each requirement of the proposed regional Reliability Standard and an implementation plan and effective dates. NERC states that these proposals were developed and reviewed for consistency with NERC and Commission guidelines.
10. NERC proposes two effective dates for the proposed regional Reliability Standard. NERC states that Requirements R1 through R7 would become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter following applicable regulatory approval but no earlier than January 1, 2016. The implementation plan states that the January 1, 2016 effective date for Requirements R1 through R7 is meant to allow for completion of the on-going six-year implementation period for NPCC Directory #12 Underfrequency Load Shedding Program Requirements.
11. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we propose to approve regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 is designed to operate in conjunction with the NERC continent-wide UFLS Reliability Standard PRC–006–1 by mitigating the consequences of underfrequency events, while accommodating differences in system transmission and distribution topology among NPCC planning coordinators due to historical design criteria, makeup of load demands, and generation resources.
12. The proposed regional Reliability Standard includes requirements not found in the corresponding NERC continent-wide UFLS Reliability Standard PRC–006–1 that are more stringent than Reliability Standard PRC–006–1 and accommodate differences in system transmission and distribution topology among NPCC planning coordinators due to historical design criteria, makeup of load demands, and generation resources.
13. For example, the generator underfrequency trip threshold in PRC–
14. While we propose to approve regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1, the Commission seeks comment on: (1) the technical basis for the 57.8 Hz maximum tripping limit for existing nuclear units established in Requirement R19; and (2) the time-frames for actions that result in changes to the NPCC UFLS program.
15. First, Requirement R19 of the proposed regional Reliability Standard for existing nuclear generating plants provides that:
16. The NERC petition does not explain the technical basis for establishing 57.8 Hz as the maximum frequency at which existing nuclear units may trip pursuant to Requirement R19.1. The NERC petition states that the proposed regional Reliability Standard was based on the work of an NPCC working group.
17. Second, Requirement R3 of NERC's Reliability Standard PRC–006–1 requires the planning coordinator to set the schedule for the distribution providers and transmission owners to implement the UFLS program. The regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1, Requirements R5, R16.2, and R19.3, require distribution providers, transmission owners, and generator owners to provide, inform, and transmit exceptions to the UFLS program and justifications for the exceptions to the planning coordinator. The requirements, however, do not specify a time-frame for the completion of these actions. Requirements R5, R16.2, and R19.3 address actions that can result in changes to the UFLS program and should occur before the UFLS program is implemented, thus making it necessary for entities to provide the required information to the planning coordinator within a specified period of time. We note there are other requirements in the proposed regional Reliability Standard that also require actions of distribution providers, transmission owners, and generator owners that should occur before the UFLS program is implemented that include specific time-frames.
18. NERC states that each Requirement of the proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 includes one VRF and one VSL and that the ranges of penalties for violations will be based on the sanctions table and supporting penalty determination process described in the Commission-approved NERC Sanctions Guideline. The Commission proposes to approve the VRFs and VSLs for regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 proposed by NERC as consistent with the Commission's established guidelines.
19. NERC proposes that Requirements R1 through R7 become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter following applicable regulatory approval but no earlier than January 1, 2016 while Requirements R8 through R23 become effective the first day of the first calendar quarter two years following applicable regulatory approval. NERC states that the implementation plan provides that “this standard is based, in part, on the timelines reflected in the existing and ongoing Implementation Plan for NPCC Directory #12 absent the annual milestones required by Directory #12.”
20. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency.
21. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
22. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1. This is the first time NERC has requested Commission approval of the proposed regional Reliability Standard. NERC states in its petition that UFLS requirements have been in place at a continent-wide level and within NPCC for many years prior to implementation of the Commission-approved Reliability Standards in 2007. Because the UFLS requirements have been in place prior to the development of PRC–006–NPCC–1, the proposed regional Reliability Standard is largely associated with requirements that applicable entities are already following.
23.
Total Annual Cost (Reporting + Record Retention)
24. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
25. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395–4638, fax: (202) 395–7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
26. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
28. Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 proposes to achieve a coordinated, comprehensive UFLS region-wide consistent program within the NPCC Region to achieve and facilitate the broader program characteristics contained in the requirements of the continent-wide Reliability Standard PRC–006–1.
29. Further, NERC explains that the cost for smaller entities to implement regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 was considered during the development process. NERC states that proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC–006–NPCC–1 provides an opportunity for smaller entities to aggregate their load with other such entities in the same electrical island. This allows each smaller entity's respective planning coordinator to achieve the desired aggregate outcome within that island according to program characteristics.
30. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that the regional Reliability Standard will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
31. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due November 26, 2012. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM12–12–000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
32. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's web site at
33. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
34. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
35. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
36. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
37. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in the
The comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking that published July 27, 2012 (77 FR 44177) is extended. Submit written or electronic comments by November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0447, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
•
•
Neal Bataller, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–210), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9062, email:
In the
The Agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The requests conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for 60 days, until November 26, 2012. The Agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on these important issues.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve the fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before October 26, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0154 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by email at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA promulgated the 1997 PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state air-quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM
On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated a supplemental rule amending the agency's initial designations (70 FR 19844), with the same effective date (April 5, 2005) as that which was promulgated at 70 FR 944. As a result of this supplemental rule, PM
On June 6, 2008, the State of Maryland submitted a revision to the Maryland SIP (#08–05) to meet nonattainment requirements for the Washington County Area. On November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199), EPA determined that Maryland had attained the 1997 PM
The 2002 base year emission inventory submitted by MDE on June 6, 2008 for Washington County, Maryland includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of stationary point sources, stationary nonpoint sources, nonroad mobile sources and onroad mobile sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NO
The CAA section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory is developed by the incorporation of data from multiple sources. States were required to develop and submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) for all source categories (
EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the SIP revision submitted by Maryland through MDE on June 6, 2008 for Washington County, Maryland. We have made the determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to approve copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings for hunting waterfowl and coots. We published a notice of application for nontoxic shot approval for copper-clad iron shot in the
Electronic comments on this proposal via
•
• Request a copy by contacting the person listed under
•
•
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on
Dr. George Allen, at 703–358–1825.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union 1978). These treaties protect most migratory bird species from take, except as permitted under the Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20. We prohibit the use of shot types other than those listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j) for hunting waterfowl and coots and any species that make up aggregate bag limits.
Deposition of toxic shot and release of toxic shot components in waterfowl hunting locations are potentially harmful to many organisms. Research has shown that ingested spent lead shot causes significant mortality in migratory birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested. We have approved nontoxic shot types and added them to the migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR 20.21(j). We continue to review all shot types submitted for approval as nontoxic.
We addressed lead poisoning in waterfowl in an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1976, and again in a 1986 supplemental EIS. The 1986 document provided the scientific justification for a ban on the use of lead shot and the subsequent approval of steel shot for hunting waterfowl and coots that began that year, with a complete ban of lead for waterfowl and coot hunting in 1991. We have continued to consider other potential candidates for approval as nontoxic shot. We are obligated to review applications for approval of alternative shot types as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots.
Many hunters believe that some nontoxic shot types compare poorly to lead and may damage some shotgun barrels. A small and decreasing percentage of hunters have not complied with nontoxic shot regulations. Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. The use of nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting increased after the ban on lead shot (Anderson et al. 2000), but we believe that compliance would continue to increase with the availability and approval of other nontoxic shot types. Increased use of nontoxic shot will enhance protection of migratory waterfowl and their habitats. More important is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated to consider all complete nontoxic shot submissions.
Environ-Metal, Inc., of Sweet Home, Oregon, seeks approval of copper-clad iron shot as nontoxic. We evaluated the impact of approval of this shot type in a draft environmental assessment, which we are making available for public review (see
Spectra Shot, LLC, of Lafayette, Louisiana, seeks approval of fluoropolymer coatings as evaluated in a draft environmental assessment, which we are making available for public review (see
We have reviewed the shot and the shot coatings under the criteria in Tier 1 of the revised nontoxic shot approval procedures at 50 CFR 20.134 for permanent approval of shot and coatings as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. We propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) to add the shot and the coatings to the list of those approved for waterfowl and coot hunting. Details on the evaluations of the shot and the coatings can be found in the draft environmental assessments.
Copper-clad iron shot is a composite in which copper is thermo-mechanically bonded to centerless-ground steel rod, then mechanically worked to final wire and shot configurations. Copper-clad iron shot may be produced with a variety of different proportions of copper and iron, ranging from 16 to 44.41% by weight copper, with a density of approximately 8.3 grams per cubic centimeter. Environ-Metal asserts that “there is little variability in composition to be expected” in production of the shot. Environ-Metal expects to produce about 50,000 pounds of copper-clad iron shot per year.
Spectra Shot is cut wire shotgun shot (steel shot) with a proprietary shot coating. Four different colors of the coated shot will be marketed as Spectra Shot
Polyamide-imide copolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene, amorphous fumed silica, and methylphenyl polysiloxane are common to all Spectra Shot
Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. Furnishing additional approved nontoxic shot types and nontoxic coatings likely would further reduce the use of lead shot. Thus, approving additional nontoxic shot types and coatings would likely result in a minor positive long-term impact on waterfowl and wetland habitats.
The impact on endangered and threatened species of approval of copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings alloys would be very small, but positive. Copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings are highly unlikely to adversely affect animals that consume the shot or habitats in which the shot might be used. We see no potential effects on threatened or endangered species due to approval of the shot type or the coatings.
We obtained a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Previously approved shot types have been shown in test results to be nontoxic to the migratory bird resource, and we believe that they cause no adverse impact on ecosystems. There is concern, however, about noncompliance with the prohibition on lead shot and potential ecosystem effects. The use of lead shot has a negative impact on wetland ecosystems due to the erosion of shot, causing sediment/soil and water contamination and the direct ingestion of shot by aquatic and predatory animals. Though we believe noncompliance is of concern, approval of the shot type and the coatings would have little impact on the resource, unless it has the small positive impact of reducing the rate of noncompliance.
We foresee no negative cumulative impacts if we approve the shot type and the coatings for waterfowl hunting. Their approval could help to further reduce the negative impacts of the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots. We believe the impacts of the approvals for waterfowl hunting in the United States should be positive.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would allow small entities to improve their economic viability. However, the rule would not have a significant economic impact because it would affect only two companies. We certify that because this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
a. This rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. This rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. This rule would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
a. This rule would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions under the regulation would not affect small government activities in any significant way.
b. This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. It would not be a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact assessment under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere with the ability of States to manage themselves or their funds.
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of
Our draft environmental assessment is part of the administrative record for this proposed regulations change. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule would not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule change would not be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor would it significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action would not be a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, please send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703–712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a–j; Pub. L. 106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
2. Amend § 20.21(j)(1) by revising the table and footnotes to read as follows.
(j)(1) * * *
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; correction
On March 8, 2010, the Forest Service published a NOT to prepare and EIS to disclose the effects of removing off-site loblolly pine plantations and restoring native vegetation on portions of the Andrew Pickens Ranger District (the District). This NOI is being corrected to reflect a delay of more than a year in filing the draft EIS. In addition, corrections are being made to the number of acres proposed for treatment and the miles of system and temporary roads based on better mapping and additional field survey work. Finally, the contact person for additional information has changed.
Victor Wyant, 864–638–9568.
1. In the
The draft environmental impact statement is expected by October 2012 and the final environmental impact statement is expected by December 2012.
2. In the
Victor Wyant (
3. In the
The District has approximately 5,542 acres of planted loblolly pine stands.
4. In the
Regeneration Harvest, With Reserves (Cut-and-Remove—3,642 Acres)
5. In the
Regeneration Harvest, With Reserves (Cut-and-Leave—1,900 Acres)
6. In the
Site Preparation and Release (3,421 Acres) for Reforestation by Planting
7. In the
Reforestation by Planting (3,061 Acres)
8. In the
Total specified system road construction is estimated at 6.5 mile but may vary once actual design is completed.
9. In the
Road Reconstruction and maintenance would be needed on approximately 60.0 miles of roads.
10. In the
Approximately 21.7 miles of temporary roads are needed for access.
The District has approximately 5,542 acres of planted loblolly pine stands. Most of the project area was converted to loblolly pine plantations by clear-cutting more diverse native stands and planting them to loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) after intensive site preparation treatments. Species composition is mostly pure loblolly pine with few native hardwoods or pines growing in the overstory. Hardwood sprouts and saplings are common in the understory.
With a lack of disturbance, the understory is comprised mostly of shade tolerant tree species such as red maple, black gum, dogwood, and sourwood. Stand density is high, typically ranging from 120 to 160 square feet of basal area per acre. Loblolly pine in the overstory of some stands is sparse due to southern pine beetle (SPB) mortality or from poor planting success. SPB-related mortality was widespread across the District in 2002 and 2003, with variable impacts to stands in the project area.
Early successional habitat is one of the most limited types of available plant and wildlife habitats on the Andrew Pickens District. The endangered plant, smooth coneflower has been limited in its distribution as a result of lack of disturbance and growth of shade tolerant species. The species is known to occur adjacent to several loblolly stands. Plant surveys have identified current locations of the plant and potential habitat areas have also been identified. There is an opportunity to promote the expansion and establishment of this species in identified areas. The Sumter National Forest Protected, Endangered, and Threatened Species (PETS) list includes several other species that require early successional habitat in order to thrive. These species generally have been restricted to along roadsides and utility right-of-ways (ROWs) because of the disturbance frequency on these sites.
The AP Loblolly Pine Removal and Restoration Project is located on four management prescription areas:
The purpose and need for this project is to restore the current landscape condition within the project area to native forest vegetation. This change in condition would improve ecosystem
The off-site loblolly pine stands would be naturally or artificially regenerated to a native species composition, mostly shortleaf pine, pitch pine, Table mountain pine, oaks, and hickories. A blight resistant American chestnut (once native to this area) would also be planted depending on suitable site conditions and seedling availability. These species are ecologically suited to the proposed treatment stands, provide mast for wildlife, and provide socio-economic benefits. All of these species, most notably the native pine species, have been declining in abundance on the District, primarily due to lack of disturbance. Felling newly-regenerated loblolly pine trees in recently harvested stands that were part of other project Decisions would help facilitate the development of native species in those stands.
Woodlands treatments would provide additional habitat diversity. Woodlands are forests with relatively low tree densities of 25–60% forest cover with understories that are dominated by native grasses and forbs. Management that promotes woodlands would serve a multitude of resources. Woodlands provide habitat for a variety of disturbance-dependent, early successional game and nongame wildlife species in all stages of their lifecycles. Populations of early successional bird species, such as northern bobwhite quail, ruffed grouse, field sparrow, and golden-winged warbler, have been declining on the Sumter National Forest because of a lack of suitable habitat. Woodlands also provide open stand conditions with ample sunlight and disturbance conditions conducive to certain plants including the federally endangered smooth coneflower.
The District has approximately 5,542 acres of planted loblolly pine stands. The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the Purpose and Need consists of regeneration harvest with reserves (cut-and-remove) and regeneration harvest with reserves (cut-and-leave) treatments and the establishment/maintenance of woodlands. Prescribed burning, manual, mechanical, and herbicide treatments would be used to reduce woody competition in regenerated stands to help establish/maintain native plant communities including smooth coneflower. Prescribed burning is covered under existing project Decisions.
Timber harvest would occur in stands where operable volumes now exist. This would include establishing log landings and loading areas, skid trails, and road access in the form of temporary roads, reconstructed roads, or newly constructed forest system roads. In addition to loblolly pine, harvest would also include Virginia pine, white pine, red maple, yellow-poplar and other hardwoods to reduce competition. Oaks, hickories, shortleaf pine, Table mountain pine, pitch pine, would be retained where possible unless removal is necessary for safety or for equipment operability reasons. Selected soft mast producers and some flowering tree species would also be retained for their wildlife food or ecological benefit.
Loblolly pine trees would be cut and left on-site where trees are too small or access too difficult for a viable commercial sale. Cut and leave treatments would also occur in stands where harvest has already occurred where loblolly pine regeneration has come in. Cutting methods would include manual methods that use hand tools and chainsaws. In addition to loblolly pine, cutting would also include Virginia pine, white pine, red maple, yellow-poplar and other hardwoods to reduce competition. Oaks, hickories, shortleaf pine, Table mountain pine, and pitch pine would be retained. Selected soft mast producers and some flowering tree species would also be retained for their wildlife food or ecological benefit.
In stands where reforestation by planting is proposed, herbicide would be used to prepare the site for planting. Any remaining Virginia pine, white pine, red maple, yellow-poplar and other hardwoods would be targeted to reduce competition to the planted species and to any remaining oaks, hickories, shortleaf pine, table mountain pine, and pitch pine. Selected soft mast producers and some flowering tree species be retained for their wildlife food or ecological benefit.
Site preparation and release treatments would include stem injection and foliar spray using the herbicides imazapyr and triclopyr that would be used in identified regeneration units. Stem injections would be applied with hatchets and squirt bottles, or similar application devices, using a mixture of 64 oz water, 64 oz Garlon 3A or equivalent (triclopyr amine) and 6 oz Arsenal AC or equivalent (imazapyr). Stem injection would be applied to target vegetation too large to treat with a foliar spray. This application is made between the first of July and the end of September.
Directed foliar spray would be applied using backpack sprayers. The application is a low volume direct spray applied to targeted vegetation by speckling the leaf surface. This application is made between the first of July and the end of September. Per gallon of mix water, the herbicide mixture for this application is: 0.5 ounce Arsenal AC or equivalent (imazapyr), 2 ounces of Garlon 4 or equivalent (triclopyr ester), V2 ounce surfactant, and spray pattern indicator.
An herbicide crop tree release treatment would be done 3 to 5 years after trees are planted. The treatment would reduce competition to oaks, hickories, shortleaf pine, Table mountain pine, pitch pine. and American chestnut (if planted) so that they could become the dominant species in the treated stands over the long term. Selected soft mast producers and some flowering tree species would be retained for their wildlife food or ecological benefit.
In stands where reforestation by planting is proposed, native shortleaf pine would be planted on a majority of the sites on a 12x12 foot spacing to augment natural regeneration of native pines and hardwoods. Where suitable habitat exists and if seedlings are available, Table mountain pine and pitch pine would be planted. Also depending on site conditions and seedling availability, a blight resistant strain of American chestnut would be planted to re-establish this species.
Plantings would take advantage of growing space created by timber harvest and site preparation. Areas of the stand would not be planted where sufficient stocking exists from overstory trees that were not harvested. This would result in a two-aged structure in some stands.
The woodland treatments would cut all loblolly pine. Virginia pine, white pine, maples, yellow-poplar, and other species would be cut as needed to reduce competition. All pitch pine and Table mountain pine would be retained unless removal is necessary for safety or for equipment operability reasons. The treatment would include thinning oaks, hickories, and shortleaf pine to a basal area (BA) of 30–40 ft\2\/acre. All oak, hickory, and shortleaf pine would be left where (BA) is currently less than 30–40 ft\2\/acre. Three of these stands would be managed to benefit smooth coneflower.
After initial treatments are completed, the areas would be prescribe-burned on a periodic basis, every 1–5 years (prescribed burning is covered under existing NEPA Decisions). Herbicide, manual and mechanical methods would be applied to sprouts/seedlings within 1–2 years after the initial post-harvest prescribed burn to reduce competition. These methods would be applied up to two more times after the initial treatment if needed to reduce competition. For woodlands management, the type of herbicide, method of application, and timing of application would be the same as that proposed for site preparation and release treatments.
Manual and mechanical methods including but not limited to hand tools (chainsaws, brush saws), and/or heavy equipment (tractor with mower, gyro-track) would be used to control sprouts and seedlings of tree species to maintain the woodland condition. Mechanical treatments would grind up or masticate undesirable understory vegetation.
The following activities would be conducted in connection with vegetation management activities.
•
•
•
•
•
The Proposed Action and another action alternative are proposed for achieving the stated purpose and need, as well as a No-Action Alternative. The other action alternatives was developed to respond to issues raised by the public during scoping.
The Andrews Pickens District Ranger, Sumter national Forest is the responsible official for this project.
The District Ranger will decide whether or not to implement the action as proposed or an alternative way to achieve the desired outcome.
The scoping process for this project occurred when the original NOI was published in 2010. Issues identified during the scoping period were used to determine the alternatives considered and to frame the effects analysis. This proposal has been listed in the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Schedule of Proposed Actions since 2010.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
The USDA Forest Service, together with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), will prepare a joint Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess the effects of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommendations on National Forest System lands for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP). The CPUC granted Southern California Edison (SCE) approval to build TRTP in Decision 09–12–044 on non-federal lands, and the Forest Service approved SCE to implement the TRTP on National Forest System lands in a 2010 Record of Decision (ROD). The decision required SCE to consult with the FAA for aviation safety. The FAA recommended installing marker balls on certain transmission line spans and aviation lighting on certain transmission structures. These recommendations will be analyzed in the joint Supplemental EIS/EIR.
Following the public review period for the Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR the Forest Service and CPUC will issue a Final Supplemental EIS/EIR. The Forest Service will issue a ROD to document the decision to either approve or deny the changes to SCE's project. As the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Lead Agency for the project, the Forest Service will conduct a detailed review of the effects of the FAA recommendations on National Forest
The Forest Service is providing notice of this analysis so that interested and affected individuals are aware of how they may participate and contribute towards the final decision on the TRTP by the Forest Service.
The Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR is expected to be published in January 2013. A 45-day comment period will occur following publication of the Notice of Availability in the
To request a copy of the Draft Supplemental EIS/SEIR or Final Supplemental EIS/EIR when it is available, or to obtain further information about the project, please write to the Angeles National Forest, c/o Aspen Environmental Group, 5020 Chesebro Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301. Alternately, electronic comments may be sent to
Lorraine Gerchas, Special Uses Coordinator, Forest Service, Angeles National Forest, 701 N. Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA 91006, phone: (626) 574–5281. For additional information related to the project on non-National Forest System lands, contact Mary Jo Borak, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102; phone: (415) 703–1333. All project-related documents are available on the Project Web site:
Lead Agencies: The Forest Service is the Federal Lead Agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1501(b), and is responsible for the preparation of the Supplemental Draft EIS/EIR and Supplemental Final EIS/EIR.
The Forest Service is not accepting public comment at this time, but the agency may be contacted with any questions, or requests for documents. The Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR will be made available for public comment. The comment period on the Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR is 45-days from the date the US Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the
In the Final Supplemental EIS/EIR the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period for the Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR. The Forest Service is the NEPA Lead Agency and the responsible official is the Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest. The responsible official will decide whether and how to issue Special Use authorization for the modifications to the project or alternatives. The responsible official will also decide how to mitigate impacts of these actions and will determine when and how monitoring of effects will take place.
The TRTP Supplemental EIS/EIR decision and the reasons for the decision will be documented in the ROD. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (35 CFR part 215).
40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 22.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed participation of South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) in Plant Ratcliffe, an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Facility located in Kemper County, Mississippi (the Project). The Acting Administrator of RUS has signed the ROD, which is effective on the publication of this notice. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The purpose of the EIS was to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project so that the DOE could assess potential cost-shared financing under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) and issuance of a loan guarantee under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05), and the USACE could consider potential issuance of permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The DOE/USACE Final EIS was issued in May 2010, and DOE issued their Record of Decision (ROD) in August 2010. RUS is considering providing a $480 million loan guarantee to SMEPA that would provide for the acquisition of a 15% undivided ownership interest in the Project. RUS adopted the Final EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (U.S.C. 4231
To obtain copies of the ROD, or for further information, please contact Ms. Emily Orler, Environmental Protection Specialist, at USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence
SMEPA has requested financing from RUS to acquire a 15% undivided ownership interest in the Project. The Project was developed under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) by Mississippi Power Company (MPCo), and will demonstrate the feasibility of the Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) technology for commercial operation. The Project has an expected net generation capacity of 573 MW, and has been designed to capture approximately 67% of the carbon dioxide (CO
RUS circulated a Notice of Adoption and the Executive Summary of the DOE/USACE Final EIS, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.19, and made the document available on the RUS Web site (
In accordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, and RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures, RUS has determined that the environmental impacts of the Project have been adequately addressed. While acknowledging that SMEPA lacks sufficient control and responsibility over the Project, RUS determined that financing SMEPA's participation in the Project would be subject to NEPA and conducted an independent evaluation of the DOE/USACE Final EIS and associated documents. RUS also reviewed the engineering studies submitted by SMEPA that further assessed the purpose and need and alternatives of SMEPA's involvement in the Project. RUS has determined that its independent evaluation and adoption of the DOE/USACE FEIS fulfills its obligations under the above cited statute and regulations for its action related to the Project. Final loan approval for the Project is dependent on the conclusion of the financial and engineering reviews. Additional detail regarding RUS's regulatory authority, the rationale for the decision, and compliance with applicable regulation are included in the ROD.
This Record of Decision is effective on signature.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The primary purpose of collecting the school enrollment data from the CPS is to relate demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, education, occupation, and income) to school enrollment behavior. Federal, state, and local governments; college institutions; research groups; and other private organizations use the school enrollment data collected. Increasing the universe will provide data on how federal investments in education and training are affecting those over 24. Additionally, monthly data allows us to measure adult enrollment in education that does not necessarily coincide with typical enrollments in the Fall for younger adults. Further, it allows better measurement of how enrollment responds both to changes in the business cycle and government policy—federal student aid training programs—that is not possible with any other federal data source.
Title 13 U.S.C., Section 182.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202–395–7245) or email (
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with August anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department also received a request to revoke one antidumping duty order in part.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with August anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for two exporters.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after August 2011, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than August 31, 2013.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 27, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
On April 27, 2012, the Department published in the
For the purpose of the order, the products covered are all seamless circular refined copper pipes and tubes, including redraw hollows, greater than or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in length and measuring less than 12.130 inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside diameter (“OD”), regardless of wall thickness, bore (
The scope of the order covers, but is not limited to, seamless refined copper pipe and tube produced or comparable to the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) ASTM–B42, ASTM–B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM–B88, ASTM–B88M, ASTM–B188, ASTM–B251, ASTM–B251M, ASTM–B280, ASTM–B302, ASTM–B306, ASTM–359, ASTM–B743, ASTM–B819, and ASTM–B903 specifications and meeting the physical parameters described therein. Also included within the scope of the order are all sets of covered products, including “line sets” of seamless refined copper tubes (with or without fittings or insulation) suitable for connecting an outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase “all sets of covered products” denotes any combination of items put up for sale that is comprised of merchandise subject to the scope.
“Refined copper” is defined as: (1) Metal containing at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal containing at least 97.5 percent by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight of any other element does not exceed the following limits:
Excluded from the scope of the order are all seamless circular hollows of refined copper less than 12 inches in length whose OD (actual) exceeds its length. The products subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Products subject to the order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are addressed in the “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the New Shipper Review” (“Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this new shipper review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Golden Dragon for the period November 22, 2010, through April 30, 2011:
The Department will determine,
Golden Dragon's weighted-average dumping margin is above
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise by Golden Dragon entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Golden Dragon, the cash
Further, effective upon publication of the final results, we intend to instruct CBP that importers may no longer post a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit on imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico, manufactured and exported by Golden Dragon. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this new shipper review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Cancellation of Telephonic prehearing conference.
Cancellation of Telephonic prehearing conference on September 25, 2012, in the matter of Maxfield and Oberton Holdings, LLC, CPSC Docket 12–1.
Katy J.L. Duke, Esq., U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Program, 504/671–2213.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Ballona Creek Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study in the
On September 29, 2005, a public scoping meeting was held pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and Engineer Regulations 1105–2–100. Baseline conditions portions of the EIS/EIR have been completed as of January, 2012. On July 17, 2012, the SMBRC requested the Corps terminate the study. Therefore, the Corps is withdrawing the Notice of Intent to Prepare a draft EIS/EIR.
Ms. Jodi Clifford, Chief, Environmental Resources Branch. Mailing Address: Ms. Jodi Clifford, Chief, Environmental Resources Branch, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, CESPL–PD–R, 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Telephone: (213) 452–3840. Email:
The Corps is no longer pursing restoration within Ballona Creek as a cost-shared study within its Civil Works program. Although SMBRC requested the Corps terminate the feasibility study, SMBRC, acting on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game, is moving forward with plans for ecosystem restoration within Ballona Creek. SMBRC must obtain permissions from the Corps to proceed with implementation of its restoration proposals. Therefore, the Corps is initiating an EIS pursuant to its authorities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, and Title 33, U.S. Code, Section 408 for a project to be planned and carried out by SMBRC. To that end, the Corps published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS in the
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, hereby gives notice of its intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) assessing the reasonably foreseeable environmental impact of a proposal to restore the aquatic ecosystem of the Quiver River, a component of the Big Sunflower River watershed in the Mississippi Delta Region of northwest Mississippi. Aquatic ecosystem restoration is proposed as a means to ameliorate the condition of the Quiver River and of the Big Sunflower River watershed.
Questions or comments may be submitted to Mr. Brian LaBarre, U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg, CEMVN–PDN–UDP, 4155 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183–3435; (601) 631–5437 (voice) or (601) 631–5115 (fax);
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 2 p.m.–4 p.m.
NNMCAB Conference Room, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Pojoaque, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995–0393; Fax (505) 989–1752 or Email:
Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at:
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 1 p.m.–5 p.m. (CDT) and Thursday, October 25, 2012, 8 a.m.–5 p.m. (CDT).
Hyatt North Houston, 425 North Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, Texas 77060.
Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 586–5600.
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 8 a.m.–5 p.m. (CDT) and Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 8 a.m.–12 p.m. (CDT).
Hyatt North Houston, 425 North Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, Texas 77060.
Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 586–5600.
Take notice that on September 12, 2012, Jo-Carroll Energy, Inc. (NFP) (JCE) 793 U.S. Route 20 West, Elizabeth, Illinois 61028, filed in Docket No. CP12–521–000, an application pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting to amend its present service area determination
JCE proposes to retroactively acquire 1.3 miles of 8-inch diameter pipeline from Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) and a related pressure regulating station that would extend the 3,800 feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline that is presently included in the Jackson County, Iowa, portion of JCE's prior service area determination. JCE states that it acquired the facilities from Northern on January 30, 2012, because the Iowa Utility Board (IUB) requested that JCE install new odorization equipment on its existing facilities to comply with IUB pipeline safety regulations. JCE also states that prior to January 30, 2012, the ownership demarcation point between Northern and JCE was in the middle of the Mississippi River, making JCE's facilities inaccessible for installing the required odorization equipment. JCE further states that its acquisition of the new facilities would not increase JCE's ability to serve customers either inside or outside of its present service area determination. Finally, JCE asserts that the sole reason it seeks to amend its service area determination is that the newly acquired facilities appear to fall outside of the very limited service area determination in Iowa that the Commission previously authorized in 2006.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Michael Hastings, Jo-Carroll Energy, Inc. (NFP), 793 U.S. Route 20 West, Elizabeth, Illinois 61028, or via telephone at (815) 858–2207 or email:
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
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:
On September 20, 2012, the Commission issued an order that initiated a proceeding in Docket No. EL12–103–000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2006), to determine whether several statements by J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation constitute violations of section 35.41(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA).
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL12–103–000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that on September 17, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2012), Enbridge Pipelines (Southern Lights) LLC, filed a petition seeking a declaratory order confirming the validity of the contractual right of first offer for committed capacity on the Southern Lights Pipeline, as set forth in Section 6.06 of the Southern Lights Transportation Service Agreement.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
September 26, 2012, 9:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m., Local Time.
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: Alabama Power Company Corporate Headquarters, Room 4G, Birmingham, Alabama.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–6139 or
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of past response costs (“Proposed Agreement”) associated with the Browning Lumber Company Superfund Site, Boone County, West Virginia was executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against Stephen C. Browning (“Settling Party”). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Party to reimburse EPA $23,000.00 for past response costs incurred by EPA for the Site.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Comments must be submitted on or before thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Proposed Agreement and additional background information relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be obtained from Robert S. Hasson (3RC41), Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the “Browning Lumber Company Superfund Site, Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs” and “EPA Docket No. CERCLA–03–2012–0242CR,” and should be forwarded to Robert S. Hasson at the above address.
Robert S. Hasson (3RC41), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 814–2672;
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of charter renewal.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, the Gulf of Mexico Citizen Advisory Committee (GMCAC) is a necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, the GMCAC is renewed for an additional two year period. The purpose of the GMCAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues associated with plans to improve and protect the water quality and living resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
LaKeshia Robertson, Designated Federal Officer, Gulf of Mexico Program Office (Mail Code: EPA/GMPO), Stennis Space Center, MS 39529, Telephone (228) 688–1712, or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Charter Renewal.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, NEJAC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the NEJAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition to object to a state operating permit.
Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated August 31, 2012, denying a petition to object to a CAA title V operating permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) to Tennessee Valley Authority for its Shawnee Fossil Plant (SFP) facility located in West Paducah, Kentucky. This Order constitutes a final action on the petition dated February 28, 2011, and submitted by the Environmental Integrity Project and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (Petitioners). Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, a petition for judicial review of those parts of the Order that deny the petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice is published in the
Copies of the Order, the petition, and information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4; Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The Order is also available electronically at the following address:
James Purvis, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562–9139 or
The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661–7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
Petitioners submitted a petition regarding SFP (received by the EPA on March 1, 2011), requesting that the EPA object to the CAA title V operating permit (#V–09–002 R1). Petitioners alleged that the permit was not consistent with the CAA for four primary reasons described in the petition. On August 31, 2012, the Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. In summary, the Petition was denied because the EPA interprets its regulations to limit the scope of petitions to object on permit revisions resulting from reopening for cause. The scope of petitions to object is limited to issues related to the parts of the permit for which the permitting authority has determined that cause to reopen exists. Because the Petitioners' objections apply to parts of the Shawnee Permit that are beyond the scope of the reopening for cause resulting in Permit Revision 1, the EPA is denying the Petition. The Order further explains the EPA's rationale for denying the petition.
Dated: September 17, 2012.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces receipt of applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. This notice provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the applications.
Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the EPA Registration Number or EPA File Symbol
•
•
•
A contact person is listed at the end of each registration application summary and may be contacted by telephone, email, or mail. Mail correspondence to the Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P) or Registration Division (RD) (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under the Agency's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for a 30-day public comment period on the proposed decision. Please see the Agency's public participation Web site for additional information on this process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is opening the public comment period for several registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. This document announces the Agency's intent not to open a registration review docket for bitertanol (case #8007), tridemorph (case #8009), and bethoxazin (case #5110). These pesticides do not currently have any actively registered pesticide products and are not, therefore, scheduled for review under the registration review program.
Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2012.
Submit your comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
3.
EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.
As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table.
EPA is also announcing that it will not be opening dockets for bitertanol (case #8007), tridemorph (case #8009), and bethoxazin (case #5110) because these pesticides are not included in any products actively registered under FIFRA section 3. The Agency will take separate actions to cancel any remaining FIFRA section 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations with these active ingredients and to propose revocation of any affected tolerances that are not supported for import purposes only.
1.
• An overview of the registration review case status.
• A list of current product registrations and registrants.
•
•
• Risk assessments.
• Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
• Summaries of incident data.
• Any other pertinent data or information.
Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome.
2.
3.
• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.
• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.
• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.
• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of request by registrants to voluntarily cancel pesticide registrations of all products containing the pesticide halofenozide. The requests would cancel all technical and end-use registrations and delete all halofenozide uses. The requests would terminate the last halofenozide products registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Unless a request is withdrawn by October 26, 2012 for registrations for which the registrant requested a waiver of the 180–day comment period, orders will be issued canceling these registrations. The Agency will consider withdrawal requests postmarked no later than October 26, 2012, whichever
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0748, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kaitlin Keller, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–8172; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to cancel all 10 halofenozide pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 or 24(c). Halofenozide is an ecdysone agonist insecticide that induces a premature and incomplete molt in susceptible species. Halofenozide is registered for use against immature stages of beetle pests (soil dwelling “white grubs”). Halofenozide is registered for use on non-agricultural uses sites, including airports/landing fields, commercial/industrial lawns, golf course turf, ornamental lawns and turf, ornamental sod farm, recreation area lawns, and residential lawns. There are no registered food or agricultural uses. In a letter dated June 25, 2012, the technical registrant, Dow AgroSciences, requested EPA to cancel certain pesticide product registrations identified in Table 1 of this unit. Specifically, Dow AgroSciences requested cancellation of its nine halofenozide product registrations because they no longer manufacture or produce halofenozide products. On August 6, 2012, the other end-use registrant, Setre Chemical Company, also requested cancellation of its halofenozide end-use product. This action on the registrants' requests will terminate the last halofenozide pesticide products registered in the United States. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit:
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a registration should contact the applicable registrant directly during this 30-day period.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number:
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. EPA's existing stocks policy published in the
Upon cancellation of the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing sale, distribution and use as described in this unit. Exception to this general policy will be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already been imposed, as in a special review action, or where the Agency has identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a particular chemical.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). On July 24, 2012 (77 FR 43283), the FDIC solicited public comment for a 60-day period on renewal of the following information collection: Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators (OMB No. 3064–0171). No comments were received. Therefore, the FDIC hereby gives notice of submission of its request for renewal to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 26, 2012.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
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. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 40901 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a licensee.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523–5843 or by email at
By the Commission.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2012–23096) published on page 58141 of the issue for Wednesday, September 19, 2012.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis heading, the entry for Clayton B. Patrick, Frankfort, Kentucky, is revised to read as follows:
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by October 2, 2012.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 11, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 22, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
In addition, Applicants have applied to acquire Slater Acquisition Corp., Fayette, Missouri; which has applied to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Slater Bancshares, Inc., and State Bank of Slater, both in Slater, Missouri.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 19, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
1.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held October 25, 2012 and October 26, 2012 from 9 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. (EDT).
Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–3901.
Ms. Caroline Talev, Public Health Assistant, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 443H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 205–1178. More detailed information about PACHA can be obtained by accessing the Council's Web site
PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995 as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. The Council was established to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to promote effective prevention of HIV disease and AIDS. The functions of the Council are solely advisory in nature.
The Council consists of not more than 25 members. Council members are selected from prominent community leaders with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV and AIDS, public health, global health, philanthropy, marketing or business, as well as other national leaders held in high esteem from other sectors of society. Council members are appointed by the Secretary or designee, in consultation with the White House Office on National AIDS Policy. The agenda for the upcoming meeting will be posted on the Council's Web site at
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Pre-registration for public attendance is advisable and can be accomplished by contacting Caroline Talev at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) certain authority added to the Public Health Service Act by section 801 of Public Law 110–85, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 282(j)), pertaining to the expansion of the Clinical Trial Registry and Results Data Bank described therein. Specifically, the Commissioner is delegated the following authority:
• Section 402(j)(5)(C)(ii) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(5)(C)(ii))—To determine that any clinical trial information was not submitted as required under 42 U.S.C. 282(j) or was submitted but is false or misleading in any particular and to notify the responsible party and give such party an opportunity to remedy non-compliance by submitting required revised clinical trial information not later than 30 days after such notification.
This authority may be redelegated. This delegation will be exercised in accordance with the Department of Health and Human Services' applicable policies, procedures, guidelines, and regulations.
I ratify and affirm any actions taken by the Commissioner or her subordinates that involved the exercise of the authority delegated herein prior to the effective date of this delegation. This delegation is effective upon date of signature.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Diane Goyette at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of Noncompetitive Program Expansion Supplement Award to the Epilepsy Foundation of America.
The Health Resources and Services Administration will be issuing noncompetitive supplemental funding under the Maternal and Child Health Bureau's Epilepsy Program to the Epilepsy Foundation of America (U23MC19824) to support additional evaluation activities.
Section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Mathematica, John Snow Inc. (QI Contractor), and the Epilepsy
Diana Denboba, Chief, Integrated Services Branch, Division of Services for Children with Special Health Needs, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 13–61, Rockville, Maryland 20857, via email at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biobehavioral Mechanisms of Emotion, Stress and Health Study Section, October 4, 2012, 8 a.m. to October 5, 2012, 5 p.m., Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20037 which was published in the
The meeting location has been changed to Renaissance Washington DC, Dupont Circle Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20037. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Children's Study Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Registration is required since space is limited and will begin at 8 a.m. Please visit the conference Web site for information on meeting logistics and to register for the meeting at
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. For additional information about the Federal Advisory Committee meeting, please contact Circle Solutions at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 2, 2012, 5 p.m. to October 2, 2012, 6 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting title has been changed to “Health Issues Across the Life Span”. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of an Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (IPRCC) meeting.
The meeting will feature invited speakers and discussion of committee business items including an overview of the Federally-funded pain research portfolio, discussion of top pain research advances over the last three years, and updates on several pain programs at the NIH and Department of Defense.
The meeting will be open to the public and accessible by live webcast and conference call.
Statements submitted will become a part of the public record. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments on behalf of that organization, and presentations will be limited to three to five minutes per speaker, depending on number of speakers to be accommodated within the allotted time. Speakers will be assigned a time to speak in the order of the date and time when their request to speak is received, along with the required submission of the written/electronic statement by the specified deadline. If special accommodations are needed, please email the Contact Person listed above.
In addition, any interested person may submit written comments to the IPRCC prior to the meeting by sending the comments to the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5 p.m. ET, Wednesday, October 17, 2012. The comments should include the name and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. All written comments received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IPRCC for their consideration and will become part of the public record.
The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number and webcast live on the Internet. Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. If you experience any technical problems with the conference call or webcast, please call Operator Service on (301) 496–4517 for conference call issues and the NIH IT Service Desk at (301) 496–4357, toll free (866) 319–4357, for webcast issues.
Individuals who participate in person or by using these electronic services and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least seven days prior to the meeting.
As a part of security procedures, attendees should be prepared to present a photo ID during the security process to get on the NIH campus. For a full description, please see:
Pre-registration is recommended. Seating will be limited to the room capacity and seats will be on a first come, first served basis, with expedited check-in for those who are pre-registered. Information about the IPRCC is available on the Web site:
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Notice of CIPAC meeting.
The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) Plenary Meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, 801 Mount Vernon Place NW., Washington, DC 20001. The meeting will be open to the public.
The CIPAC Plenary Meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 3, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Registration will begin at 7:30 a.m. For additional information, please consult the CIPAC Web site,
The meeting will be held at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, 801 Mount Vernon Place NW., Washington, DC 20001.
While this meeting is open to the public, participation in the CIPAC deliberations is limited to committee members, Department of Homeland Security officials, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations.
Immediately following the committee member deliberation and discussion period, there will be a limited time period for public comment. This public comment period is designed for substantive commentary that must pertain only to matters involving critical infrastructure protection and resiliency. Off-topic questions or comments will not be permitted or discussed. Please note that the public comment period may begin prior to 3 p.m. if the committee has completed its business.
To accommodate as many speakers as possible, oral presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker, with no more than 30 minutes for all speakers. Parties interested in presenting must register in person at the meeting location. Oral presentations will be permitted on a first-come, first-serve basis, and given based upon the order of registration; all registrants may not be able to speak if time does not permit.
Written comments are welcome at any time prior to or following the meeting. Written comments may be sent to Renee Murphy, National Protection and
•
•
•
•
Renee Murphy, Section Chief, Sector Outreach and Programs Division, Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0607, Arlington, VA 20598–0607, telephone (703) 235–3999 or via email at
CIPAC represents a partnership between the Federal Government and critical infrastructure owners and operators and provides a forum in which they can engage in a broad spectrum of activities to support and coordinate critical infrastructure protection.
The October 3, 2012 meeting will include topic-specific discussions focused on partnership efforts to enhance critical infrastructure resilience. Topics such as Physical and Cyber Critical Infrastructure Protection, Industrial Control Systems Security, Opportunities in Mitigating Aging U.S Infrastructure, Social Media's Role in Critical Infrastructure, and Critical Infrastructure Program Updates will be discussed.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the CIPAC Secretariat at (703) 235–3999 as soon as possible.
30-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 26, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via email at
All submissions received must include the agency name, OMB Control Number and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
30-day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 26, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via email at
All submissions received must include the agency name, OMB Control Number and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, 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.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
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 Foreign Assembler's Declaration (with Endorsement by Importer). 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 26, 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 International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202–325–0265.
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 recordkeepers 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:
19 CFR 10.24(c) and (d) require that the importer/assembler maintain records for 5 years from the date of the related entry and that they make these records readily available to CBP for audit, inspection, copying, and reproduction.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112–10, approved April 15, 2011) (Appropriations Act), provided a total of $100,000,000 to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning. Of that total, $70,000,000 is available for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program, and $30,000,000 is available for the Community Challenge Planning Grant Program.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) Planning Grant Programs, which comprise of the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program and the Community Challenge Planning Grant
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2501-Pending) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also Lists the Following Information:
Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112–10, approved April 15, 2011) (Appropriations Act), provided a total of $100,000,000 to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning. Of that total, $70,000,000 is available for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program, and $30,000,000 is available for the Community Challenge Planning Grant Program. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) Planning Grant Programs, which comprise of the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program and the Community Challenge Planning Grant Program, require the financial reporting by grantees. This tracking of grantee financial data is solely in regards to the HUD-OSHC SCI grant. Such tracking is obligatory during the prescribed reporting periods, reimbursement requests for award funds, proof of in-kind contributions toward grant match funding, and the close-out of the award.
The number of burden hours is 300. The number of respondents is 200, the number of responses is 1200, the frequency of response is on occasion, and the burden hour per response is 0.25.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
The Public Housing lease and grievance procedures are a recordkeeping requirement on the part of Public Housing agencies (PHAs) as they are required to enter into and maintain lease agreements for each individual or family that occupies a Public Housing unit. Also, both PHAs and tenants are required to follow the protocols set forth in the grievance procedures for both an informal and formal grievance hearing. The current revision was needed to correct errors in the 2009 calculation. The earlier calculation had over the amount of time needed to complete the form. The previous submission incorrectly included the number of responding PHAs in the calculation and also incorrectly assumed that 100% of households would be reviewing or initiating a lease. The correction of the errors brought the number of burden hours down from 5,671,800 to 339,822.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577–0006) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
This Notice also Lists the Following Information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
The information and collection requirements consist of PHA screening requirements to obtain criminal conviction records from law enforcement agencies to prevent admission of criminals into the public housing and Section 8 programs and to assist in lease enforcement and eviction of those individuals in the public housing and Section 8 programs who engage in criminal activity. The reason for the current revision is that the 2009 submission only included the burden hours for Public Housing participants. Because the screening is done for residents in the Public Housing and Section 8 program, the calculations were updated to reflect this reality. The current calculations use the existing formula for burden hours but include voucher residents.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577–0232) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard., Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
60-day Notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), BSEE is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns a revision to the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Subpart K,
You must submit comments by November 26, 2012.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods listed below.
•
•
Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at (703) 787–1607 to request additional information about this ICR.
Section 5(a) of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary to prescribe rules and regulations “to provide for the prevention of waste, and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein” and to include provisions “for the prompt and efficient exploration and development of a lease area.”
Section 1334(g)(2) states “* * * the lessee shall produce such oil or gas, or both, at rates * * * to assure the maximum rate of production which may be sustained without loss of ultimate recovery of oil or gas, or both, under sound engineering and economic principles, and which is safe for the duration of the activity covered by the approved plan.”
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104–133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A–25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is required to charge the full cost for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those that accrue to the public at large. Several requests for approval required in Subpart K are subject to cost recovery, and BSEE regulations specify service fees for these requests.
This ICR addresses our current regulations governing oil and gas production at 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart K, associated forms, and related Notices to Lessees (NTLs) and Operators. The BSEE issued several NTLs to clarify and provide additional guidance on some aspects of the current Subpart K regulations. This collection of information will renew the approved information collection for the current Subpart K regulations (1014–0019).
Regulations at 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart K, implement these statutory requirements. We use the information in our efforts to conserve natural resources, prevent waste, and protect correlative rights, including the Government's royalty interest. Specifically, BSEE uses the information to:
• Evaluate requests to burn liquid hydrocarbons and vent and flare gas to ensure that these requests are appropriate;
• Determine if a maximum production or efficient rate is required; and,
• Review applications for downhole commingling to ensure that action does not result in harm to ultimate recovery.
However, in this ICR, we have also clarified some sections of Form BSEE–0126. These clarifications pose minor edits and they are as follows:
In Block No. 88, TYPE OF REQUEST, we added the word “Reestablish”; in Block No. 108, we revised the block that read “API @ 60° F” to now read as “API @ 14.73 PSI & 60° F” and in Block No. 109, we revised the block from “SP GR GAS” to now read as “SP GR GAS @ 14.73 PSI & 60°F”.
We use the information in Form BSEE–0126, Well Potential Test Report, for reservoir, reserves, and conservation analyses, including the determination of maximum production rates (MPRs) when necessary for certain oil and gas completions. The information obtained from the well potential test is essential to determine if an MPR is necessary for a well and to establish the appropriate
We protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and 30 CFR 250.197,
Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have other than hour burden costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. For further information on this burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and (2), or contact the Bureau representative listed previously in this notice.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) to take small numbers of southern sea otters (
Comments and information must be received by October 26, 2012.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Please include your name and return address in your message.
To request copies of the application, the list of references used in this notice, and other supporting materials, contact Lilian Carswell at the address in
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(A) and (D)), authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, provided that we make certain findings and either issue regulations or, if the taking is limited to harassment, provide a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review and comment.
We may grant authorization to incidentally take marine mammals if we find that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. As part of the authorization process, we prescribe permissible methods of taking and other means of affecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings.
The term “take,” as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, any marine mammal. “Harassment,” as defined by the MMPA, means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [the MMPA calls this Level A harassment], or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [the MMPA calls this Level B harassment].”
The terms “small numbers,” “negligible impact,” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in 50 CFR 18.27, the Service's regulations governing take of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities. “Small numbers” is defined as “a portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a negligible impact on that species or stock.” “Negligible impact” is defined as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” “Unmitigable adverse impact” is defined as “an impact resulting from the specified activity (1) that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.” The subsistence provision does not apply to the southern sea otters.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which U.S. citizens can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals where the take will be limited to harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) establishes a 45-day time limit for Service review of an application, followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, we must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. We refer to these authorizations as Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs).
On August 31, 2012, we received a revised request from PG&E (applicant) for MMPA authorization to “take by harassment” southern sea otters (
The applicant would conduct the geophysical survey with a seismic research vessel (R/V
The geophysical survey vessel would tow a series of sound-generating air guns and sound-recording hydrophones along pre-determined shore-parallel and shore-perpendicular transects to conduct deep seismic reflection profiling of major geologic structures and fault zones in the vicinity of DCPP. The air gun array would be towed at a depth of 9 m (30 ft) and consist of 18 air guns with a total air discharge volume of approximately 3,300 inch (in)
The nearshore actions would include the placement of 12 seafloor geophones (
A detailed description of the proposed action is contained in the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for Marine Geophysical Surveys by the R/V
Marine Geophysical Surveys by the R/V
The surveys are proposed to be conducted from October 15 through December 31, 2012, to avoid the period of highest marine mammal and fish migration activity and to accommodate nesting bird constraints. Mobilization could begin as early as October 15, but sound source verification procedures and active air gun surveys would start no earlier than November 1. The surveys would occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The project duration would be approximately 49 days, with the seismic survey comprising approximately 23 of those days, and the remaining days occupied in project preparation, transit, and anticipated weather and/or ship maintenance delays.
The proposed survey includes a total survey line length of 3,565.8 km (2,215.7 mi), of which 46.4 km (28.8 mi) of survey transect lines would be traveled in areas shallower than the 40-m (131-ft) contour. The 40-m (131-ft) contour is the depth within which more than 95 percent of southern sea otter dives occur (Tinker
The 3D seismic survey track lines encompass an area of approximately 740.5 km
The project would be conducted in rocky-bottom and sandy-bottom marine habitat off the coast of central California in water depths ranging from 0–400 m (1,300 ft). Sea otter habitat is typically defined by the 40-m (131-ft) isobath (Laidre
The southern sea otter is the only marine mammal under the jurisdiction of the Service that would be affected by the proposed project. Among the largest members of the family Mustelidae but the smallest of marine mammals, southern sea otters exhibit limited sexual dimorphism (males are larger than females) and can attain weights and lengths up to 40 kg (88 lbs) and 140 cm (55 in), respectively. They have a typical life span of 11–15 years (Riedman and Estes 1990). Unlike most other marine mammals, sea otters have little subcutaneous fat. They depend on their clean, dense, water-resistant fur for insulation against the cold and maintain a high level of internal heat production to compensate for their lack of blubber. Consequently, their energetic
Southern sea otters forage in both rocky and soft-sediment communities in water depths generally 25 m (82 ft) or less, although individuals occasionally move into deeper water. Individual animals tend to specialize on a subset of the overall population diet. Dive depth and dive pattern vary by sex (males tend to make deep dives more frequently than females), geographic location, and diet specialization (Tinker
The annual patterns that characterize the movements of southern sea otters along the coast are complicated and vary between males and females. Their home ranges tend to consist of several heavily used areas with travel corridors between them. Animals often remain in an area for a long period of time and then suddenly move long distances. These movements can occur at any time of the year (Riedman and Estes 1990). Sub-adult males have the largest home ranges, followed by adult males, sub-adult females, and adult females (Tinker
Southern sea otters are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), and because of their threatened status are automatically considered “depleted” under the MMPA. A final revised recovery plan for the southern sea otter was published in 2003 (68 FR 16305). The State of California also recognizes the southern sea otter as a fully protected mammal (Fish and Game Code section 4700) and as a protected marine mammal (Fish and Game Code section 4500).
All members of the southern sea otter population are descendants of a small group that survived the fur trade near Big Sur, California. Historically ranging from at least as far north as Oregon (Valentine
Southern sea otter abundance varies considerably across the range, with the highest densities occurring in the center part of the range (Monterey peninsula to Estero Bay), where they have been present for the longest. Densities tend to be most stable from year to year in rocky, kelp-dominated areas that are primarily occupied by females, dependent pups, and territorial males. In contrast, sandy and soft-bottom habitats (in particular Monterey Bay, Estero Bay, and Pismo Beach to Pt. Sal) tend to be occupied by males and sub-adult animals of both sexes (but rarely by adult females and pups) and are more variable in abundance from year to year. This variation is apparently driven in part by the long-distance movements and seasonal redistribution of males (Tinker
Standardized range-wide counts of southern sea otters were initiated in 1982. Census and distribution data are available from the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center at
Little is known regarding the effects of sound on sea otters. Sea otters have not been reported as being particularly sensitive to sound disturbance, especially in comparison to other marine mammals. For instance, Riedman (1983, 1984) observed the behavior of sea otters along the California coast during single, 100-in
Underwater sounds are not likely to affect sea otters at the surface, due to the pressure release effect. Thus, the susceptibility of sea otters to disturbance from underwater sounds is probably restricted to behaviors during which the head is submerged, such as during foraging dives and underwater swimming and, intermittently, during grooming bouts. Yeates
Observed sea otter responses to disturbance are highly variable, probably reflecting the level of noise and activity to which they have been exposed and become acclimated over time and the particular location and social or behavioral state of that individual (G. Bentall, Monterey Bay Aquarium Sea Otter Research and Conservation Program, pers. comm.). Reactions to anthropogenic noise can be manifested as visible startle responses, flight responses (flushing into water from haulouts or “splash-down” alarm behavior in surface-resting rafts), changes in moving direction and/or speed, changes in or cessation of certain behaviors (such as grooming, socializing, or feeding), or avoidance of areas where noise sources are located.
The biological significance of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification would be expected to be biologically significant if the change affected growth, survival, or reproduction. Potentially significant behavioral modifications include:
Currently, NMFS uses 160 dB re 1 μPa at received level for impulse noises (such as air gun pulses) as the onset of behavioral harassment (Level B harassment) for all marine mammals that are under its jurisdiction, and 180 dB re 1 μPa at received level as the threshold for potential injury or permanent physiological damage (Level A harassment) for cetaceans (70 FR 1871, January 11, 2005). In the absence of data on which to base thresholds specific to sea otters, we utilize the 160 dB re 1 μPa and 180 dB re 1 μPa thresholds for Level B and Level A harassment of sea otters. Based on the 160 dB re 1 μPa exposure area for survey box areas 2 and 4 and the average densities of sea otters in these areas, we estimate that approximately 352 sea otters will be exposed to underwater sound levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa or greater (Table 2). Note that because survey box areas 2 and 4 overlap, the total number of sea otters expected to be exposed to this level of sound is less than the sum of the numbers of sea otters in the 160 dB re 1 μPa exposure areas for survey box areas 2 and 4. In the overlapping area, sea otters will be subject to sound exposures associated with both survey box areas. Because limited evidence suggests that sea otters are less suceptible to acoustic disturbance than other marine mammals, these thresholds may be overly conservative. If, during implementation of the project, sea otters appeared to be undisturbed by sound to the extent that the exclusion zone (see
Exposure to very strong sounds could affect southern sea otters physically in a number of ways. These include temporary threshold shift (TTS), which is short-term hearing impairment, and permanent threshold shift (PTS), which is permanent hearing loss. Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in southern sea otters exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that may theoretically occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. However, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur in sea otters, even those in close proximity to large arrays of air guns. It is unlikely that any effects of these types would occur during the present project given the brief duration of exposure of any given sea otter and the planned monitoring and mitigation measures. The following subsections discuss in more detail the possibilities of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical effects.
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter 1985). While an animal is experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. It is a temporary phenomenon, and (especially when mild) is not considered physical damage or “injury” (Southall
The magnitude of TTS depends on the level and duration of noise exposure and, to some degree, on frequency, among other considerations (Kryter 1985; Richardson
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be total or partial deafness. In other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses from air guns can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of air guns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an air gun array might incur at least mild TTS in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals in very close proximity to air guns might incur PTS (
Boat strikes are a relatively low but persistent source of sea otter mortality. During the 2006–2010 period, 11 sea otters were suspected to have been struck by boats (USGS and CDFG unpub. data). However, vessel strikes involving sea otters appear primarily to involve small, fast boats, and most collision reports have come from small vessels (NMFS 2003; NMFS 2006). Because sea otters spend a considerable portion of their time at the surface of the water, they are typically visually aware of approaching boats and are able to move away if the vessel is not traveling too quickly. The noise of approaching boats provides an additional warning. Because the R/V
The proposed seismic survey would not result in any known impacts on the habitats used by southern sea otters or the food sources they exploit. The main impact of the project would be temporarily elevated noise levels. Although approximately 11.5 percent of the mainland southern sea otter range would eventually be ensonified to sound levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa or greater by the time the survey was completed, only one circular area with a radius of approximately 6.2 km (3.9 mi) would be ensonified to these levels or greater at any one time.
Preliminary biological surveys have been completed for the areas where marine geophone lines are proposed to be placed to ensure they are routed along corridors that minimize contact with rock substrates, kelp canopy areas, and seagrass beds. In areas where such habitats are unavoidable due to their contiguous distribution along the coastline, the placement and recovery of the small geophone units in potentially sensitive areas would be done by divers/remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) deployed from small vessels in such a way as to minimize any potential effects and to ensure that no sea otter habitat is permanently altered. All deployment and recovery operations would be conducted during daylight hours and monitored by an onboard Protected Species Observer (PSO).
The subsistence provision of the MMPA does not apply to southern sea otters.
Efforts were made during the initial project planning phase to identify the minimum energy source level needed for data collection and thereby to minimize the sound impacts to the marine environment, to reduce the area of the survey to only the area necessary for critical data collection, and to consider and plan around marine biological resources/life functions (such as presence, breeding, feeding, and migration) in the survey area.
PG&E and LDEO are proposing the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential effects of the project on southern sea otters resulting from air guns and vessel activities:
• PG&E would conduct an aerial survey approximately 1 week prior to the start of the seismic survey to obtain pre-survey information on the numbers and distribution of southern sea otters in the seismic survey area. Weekly aerial surveys would also be conducted throughout the survey program. Survey routes would be adjusted as feasible to avoid concentrations of sea otters,
• Protected Species Observers (PSOs) (NMFS-certified and Service-approved) would be stationed on the primary survey vessel and on the support and scout vessels. PSOs would also be present on vessels involved in the deployment and recovery of marine geophones,
• PSOs would visually monitor sea otters within the designated survey exclusion (180 dB re 1 μPa) and safety (160dB re 1 μPa) zones during all daylight hours,
• If one or more sea otters were observed near the exclusion zone and appeared to be about to enter it, avoidance measures would be taken, including decreasing vessel speed or implementing a power down,
• If one or more sea otters were observed within the exclusion zone, the air gun arrays would be shut down within several seconds. The PSO would then maintain a watch to determine when the sea otter(s) appeared to be outside the exclusion zone such that air gun operations could resume,
• Power-up, ramp-up, and shut-down procedures would be implemented during all air gun operations,
• A mitigation air gun (a continuously operated, low-volume, single air gun versus all eighteen) would be used during survey turns outside of the 3D survey area as well as during power-down and standby periods to deter marine wildlife from re-entering the exclusion zone,
• During nighttime operations, whenever the vessel survey tracks were located inshore of the 40-meter depth contour (where physical encounters with sea otters are more likely), PSOs would visually monitor the area forward of the survey vessel with the aid of infra-red (night vision) goggles/binoculars and the forward-looking infra-red (FLIR) system available onboard the R/V
The Service proposes the following findings regarding this action:
For small take analysis, the statute and legislative history do not expressly require a specific type of numerical analysis, leaving the determination of “small” to the agency's discretion. Factors considered in our small numbers determination include the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
It should be noted that if sea otters appeared to be undisturbed by sound to the extent that the exclusion zone could not be successfully kept clear of sea otters, the applicant would have the option to request that the Service approve a reduction of the exclusion zone radius. We would review the request and notify the applicant of our determination. Our approval would not constitute authorization of Level A harassment. Rather, our approval would be based on a determination, following review of information on sea otter behavior obtained through required monitoring during the survey, that a smaller exclusion zone would avoid Level A harassment.
The Service finds that any incidental “take by harassment” that may result from this proposed seismic survey cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, and would, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the stock. In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific information, including (1) The biological and behavioral characteristics of the species, (2) the most recent information on distribution and abundance of sea otters within the area of the proposed activity, (3) the potential sources of short-term disturbance during the proposed activity, and (4) the potential response of southern sea otters to this short-term disturbance.
Limited evidence (Riedman 1983, 1984) suggests that sea otters are not particularly sensitive to or adversely affected by sound. Responses of sea otters to disturbance would most likely be diving and/or swimming away from the sound source, which may entail the temporary, but not sustained, interruption of foraging, breeding, resting, or other natural behaviors. Thus, although 352 sea otters (approximately 13 percent of the mainland population) are estimated to be potentially taken (
The mitigation measures outlined above are intended to minimize the number of sea otters that may be disturbed by the proposed activity. Any impacts on individuals are expected to be limited to Level B harassment and to be of short-term duration. No take by injury or death is anticipated or authorized. Should the Service determine, based on the monitoring and reporting to be conducted throughout the survey activities, that the effects are greater than anticipated, the authorization may be modified, suspended, or revoked.
Our finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take associated with the proposed activity as mitigated through this authorization process. This authorization establishes monitoring and reporting requirements to evaluate the impacts of the authorized activities, as well as mitigation measures designed to minimize interactions with, and impacts to, southern sea otters.
The subsistence provision of the MMPA does not apply to southern sea otters.
The applicant would be required to conduct monitoring of southern sea otters during the seismic surveys in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring and to satisfy monitoring required under the MMPA. Project personnel would be required to record information regarding location and behavior of all sea otters observed during operations. When conditions permitted, information regarding age (pup, independent) and tag color and position (for flipper-tagged animals) would also be required to be recorded.
Due to the lack of data on the effects of air guns on sea otters, in addition to project-related mitigation monitoring, the Service has recommended that PG&E and LDEO use the survey as an opportunity to investigate the potential effects of air guns on sea otters. PG&E and LDEO have agreed to address this request by arranging, with input from the Service, for the design and implementation of an ancillary scientific study during and after the survey and subsequent analysis. The study would be conducted by
The applicant would be required to implement the following monitoring and reporting program to increase knowledge regarding the species and to assess the level of take caused by the proposed action:
Approximately 1 week prior to the start of seismic survey operations, an aerial survey would be flown to establish a baseline for numbers and distribution of southern sea otters in the project area;
Vessel-based monitoring for marine wildlife, including southern sea otters, would be done by trained PSOs throughout the period of survey activities. PSO duties would include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and any reactions to the survey operations; and documenting potential “take by harassment” as defined by the Service and NMFS.
A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard the survey and support vessels to meet the following criteria:
• 100-percent monitoring during all periods of survey operations (visual everywhere during daylight and inshore of the 40-m contour at night); and
• A maximum of four consecutive hours on watch per PSO.
PSO teams would consist of Service- and NMFS-approved PSOs and experienced field biologists. An experienced crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the survey vessels. Crew leaders and biologists serving as PSOs would be individuals with experience as PSOs during high-energy survey projects (HESS), and/or shallow hazards surveys in California.
PSOs would be required to have previous marine mammal observation experience, and field crew leaders would be highly experienced with previous vessel-based marine mammal monitoring and mitigation projects. Resumes for those individuals would be provided to the Service and NMFS for review and acceptance of their qualifications. PSOs would be familiar with the region and the marine mammals of the area and would complete an in-house observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures.
The PSOs would watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the PSO tower on the R/V
Information recorded by PSOs would include:
• Species, group size, age/size/gender (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if determinable), bearing and distance from observer, apparent reaction to activities (
• Time, location (GPS coordinates), sea state, visibility, sun glare, and speed and activity of the vessel, and
• Positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the observer location.
The ship's position, speed of the vessel, water depth, sea state, visibility, and sun glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there were substantial changes in any of those variables.
If a southern sea otter were seen within the exclusion zone, the geophysical crew would be notified immediately so that the mitigation measures called for in the applicable authorization(s) could be implemented. The air gun arrays would be shut down within several seconds. The PSO would then maintain a watch to determine when the sea otter(s) appeared to be outside the exclusion zone such that air gun operations could resume.
Aerial surveys would be conducted weekly during seismic survey operations to assist in the identification and avoidance of southern sea otters within the project area;
Approximately 1 week prior to the completion of the offshore seismic survey operations, a final aerial survey would be conducted to document the number and distribution of southern sea otters in the project area. These data would be used in comparison with original survey data collected prior to the seismic operations.
No post-activity monitoring is proposed.
Throughout the survey program, PSOs would prepare a report each week summarizing the recent results of the monitoring program. The reports would summarize the numbers of sea otters sighted. These reports would be provided to the Service, PG&E, LDEO, and NSF.
The results of the vessel-based monitoring, including estimates of potential “take by harassment,” would be compiled in a report and submitted to the Service within 90 days of survey conclusion; the report would also be posted on the NSF Web site at:
Along with any other State or Federal requirements, the 90-day report would minimally include:
• Summaries of monitoring effort: Total hours, total distances, and distribution of marine mammals through the study period accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
• Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing the detectability of marine mammals, including sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare;
• Species composition and occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender, and group sizes, and analyses of the effects of survey operations;
• Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without air gun activities (and other variables that could affect detectability);
• Initial sighting distances versus air gun activity state (firing, powered down, or shut-down);
• Closest point of approach versus air gun activity state;
• Observed behaviors and types of movements versus air gun activity state;
• Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus air gun activity state;
• Distribution around the survey vessel versus air gun activity state; and
• Estimates of “take by harassment”.
The southern sea otter is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). Because the proposed activities may affect the southern sea otter, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, the Service must ensure that its issuance of the IHA will not jeopardize the species. In addition, the NSF must ensure that its provision of the R/V
The seismic survey is described in the Draft EA prepared by the applicant under the supervision of the NSF, the lead Federal agency. If we find it to be adequate and appropriate, we will adopt the Draft EA as the Service's Environmental Assessment (EA) of whether issuance of the IHA would have a significant effect on the human environment. Our analysis will be completed prior to issuance or denial of the IHA and will be available at
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3225, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with Federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects.
The Service proposes to issue an IHA for southern sea otters harassed incidentally by the applicant in the course of conducting seismic surveys beginning October 15, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012. Mobilization could begin as early as October 15, but sound source verification procedures and active air gun surveys would start no earlier than November 1. Authorization for incidental take beyond this time period would require a new request. The final IHA, if issued, will incorporate the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements discussed in this proposal. The applicant would be responsible for following those requirements. If the level of activity exceeded that described by the applicant, or the level or nature of take exceeded those projected here, the Service would reevaluate its findings. Conversely, if sea otters appeared to be undisturbed by sound to the extent that the exclusion zone could not be successfully kept clear of sea otters, the applicant would have the option to request that the Service approve a reduction of the exclusion zone radius. We would review the request and notify the applicant of our determination. The Secretary would have the ability to modify, suspend, or revoke this authorization if the findings were not accurate or the conditions described in this notice were not being met. Should the applicant request incidental harassment authorization for survey box area 1 in 2013, the Service will re-analyze the small numbers and negligible impact determinations, which would include an evaluation of the information gained through the monitoring and reporting requirements proposed in this IHA, and make a new finding at that time.
The Service requests interested parties to submit comments and information concerning this proposed IHA. Consistent with section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA, we are opening the comment period on this proposed authorization for 30 days (
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Decision Approving Lands for Conveyance.
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision to Council Native Corporation. The decision approves only the surface estate in the lands described below for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Containing 129.97 acres.
Containing 1,242.28 acres.
Containing 3,164.08 acres.
Containing approximately 1,683 acres.
Aggregating approximately 6,219 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until October 26, 2012 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
3. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513–7504.
The BLM by phone at 907–271–5960 or by email at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order extends the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 6944 for an additional 20-year period. The extension is necessary to continue protection of the cultural and historical values of the Granite Chinese Walls Historic Site, which would otherwise expire on September 30, 2012.
Michael L. Barnes, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, 333 SW. 1st Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204, 503–808–6155, or Dianne Torpin, United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 333 SW. 1st Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204, 503–808–2422. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact either of the above individuals. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with either of the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires this extension to continue protection of the Granite Chinese Walls Historic Site in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on September 30, 2032, unless as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
Public Land Order No. 6944 (57 FR 45321 (1992)), which withdrew approximately 43.75 acres of National Forest System land from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. chapter 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the Granite Chinese Walls Historic Site, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until September 30, 2032.
National Park Service (NPS), Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the Information Collection (IC) described below. This collection will consist of a survey and a focus group script that will be used to collect visitors and local community members' perceptions and evaluations of four management issues (1) Cave tour size and frequency; (2) ticketing procedure and fees; (3) concession service quality and selection; and (4) safety concerns on park trails. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC.
Please submit your comments on or before November 26, 2012.
Please send your comments to Phadrea Ponds, Information Collections Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or
Jim Ireland, Superintendent at
The National Park Service (NPS) will conduct a study at Timpanogos Cave National Monument. The study consists of a survey and a focus group using a random sample of visitors and residents of the communities surrounding the park. The collection will be used to understand visitors and local resident's perceptions and evaluations of the following management issues:
(1) Cave tour size and frequency.
(2) Ticketing process and fees.
(3) Concession service quality and selection.
(4) Safety concerns and user conflict while using park trails.
The information from this collection will provide NPS managers and planners with visitors and community members' perceptions of how each of the above management issue affects their overall quality of visit experience. Visitors' opinions about cave tour size and frequency as well as the ticketing process will be incorporated with ecological survey data to determine the most appropriate resource management strategy that balance between protection of the cave and visitor experience. Other information such safety concerns and concession services will be used in park management planning to determine appropriate management actions. Data collected will also be used in interpretive planning document to improve overall visit experience.
We invite comments concerning this ICR on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service (NPS), Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. This collection currently consist of three forms (General Submission, Annual Renewal, Exhibitor Submission) used by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (NPS IACUC/the Committee) to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), its regulations (AWAR), and the Interagency Research Animal Committee (IRAC) principles for projects involving the use of vertebrate animals in research, teaching, and/or exhibition. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as a part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on this IC. The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that we may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to, a collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.
Please submit your comment on or before November 26, 2012.
Please send your comments to the IC to Phadrea Ponds, Information Collections Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or
Jordan Spaak, NPS IACUC Administrator by mail at Biological Resource Management Division 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 or
All research, teaching, and exhibition projects involving vertebrate animals taking place on NPS territories must be approved by the NPS IACUC prior to their commencement. Principal Investigators (PI) are required to submit the completed General Submission, Annual Renewal, or Exhibitor Submission as required for approval to the NPS IACUC Office.
We invite comments concerning this ICR on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting closure.
Notice is hereby given for the partial closure of the September 26, 2012, meeting of the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Commission. The federally appointed Commission serves as the guiding body for Niagara Falls National Heritage Area.
The Commission will meet on Wednesday, September 26, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. (Eastern).
The meeting will take place at Niagara University's Bisgrove Hall, Room 250. The University is located at 5795 Lewiston Road, Niagara University, New York 14109. Parking is limited on campus but readily available in the eastern lots of the Power Vista.
Debbie Conway, Superintendent, Fort Stanwix National Monument, 112 East Park St., Rome, New York 13440; telephone (315) 336–3113.
The proposed meeting agenda includes the following:
1. Public Comments.
2. Executive Session.
3. Review of August 29, 2012 Minutes.
4. Committee Reports.
5. Project Updates.
6. Presentation by Lewiston Web Solutions.
7. Adjourn Meeting.
The meeting is open to the public and will have time allotted for public testimony. Public comments will be heard at the beginning of the meeting and will be limited to 5 minutes per person. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice to extend post-sale evaluation period.
This notice extends through October 18, 2012, the post-sale evaluation period for Consolidated Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222. BOEM will complete the evaluation process for all bids received in this sale by October 18, 2012. This action is necessary due to the temporary closure of the BOEM Regional Office building in New Orleans and other effects of the recent hurricane impacting the region.
The post-sale evaluation period for this sale will conclude on October 18, 2012.
In connection with the Consolidated Central Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 216/222, held June 20, 2012, BOEM received 593 bids on 454 tracts. On July 10, 2012, the high bids on 63 tracts were accepted and bids on another 391 tracts were passed to Phase 2 of the post-sale evaluation period for detailed evaluation. As of September 14, 2012, BOEM had completed the evaluation and deemed acceptable the high bids offered on 203 of the tracts passed to Phase 2. BOEM is continuing the evaluation process of bids for the remaining 188 tracts.
On August 27, 2012, BOEM personnel reported to work to carry out activities outlined in the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico Region Emergency/Hurricane Preparedness Plan. Upon completion of the tasks, the Gulf of Mexico Regional Office building in New Orleans was closed at 3:00 p.m. local time. Many BOEM employees and their families evacuated the area ahead of the storm. On August 29, 2012, Hurricane Isaac made landfall along the northern Gulf Coast, just south of the New Orleans metropolitan area. Heavy rainfall and high winds caused flooding and damage to homes, businesses, and properties in the area. The New Orleans area experienced widespread power outages that affected nearly every resident. BOEM's Regional Office building in New Orleans received minor water damage to office space on 4 floors in the building, including offices occupied by key personnel directly involved in the post-sale evaluation process.
As a result of these extraordinary circumstances, BOEM requires additional time to complete the bid review process, originally scheduled to conclude within 90 days following the Sale 216/222 sale date, that is, by September 18, 2012. Under the provisions of 30 CFR 556.47(e)(2), BOEM is extending the bid evaluation period until October 18, 2012.
David Cooke, Regional Supervisor, Office of Resource Evaluation, Gulf of Mexico Region, telephone 504–736–2710.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of CPA Sale 227.
BOEM announces the availability of the Proposed NOS for
Affected States may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed CPA Sale 227 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the
The Proposed NOS for CPA Sale 227 and a “Proposed Notice of Sale Package” containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123–2394. Telephone: (504) 736–2519.
Donna Dixon, Leasing Division Chief,
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about the WIA Management Information and Reporting System (OMB Control No. 1205–0420, expiring 12/31/2012). This reporting system contains the individual record files on the WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, Youth, and National Emergency Grant programs, the quarterly and annual reports on those programs (ETA 9090 and ETA 9091), as well as the customer satisfaction survey information reported by statutory measure States.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before November 26, 2012.
Submit written comments to Karen Staha, Office of Policy Development and Research, Room N–5641, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–693–2917 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202–693–2766. Email:
The accuracy, reliability, and comparability of program reports submitted by states using Federal funds are fundamental elements of good public administration, and are necessary tools for maintaining and demonstrating system integrity. The use of a standard set of data elements, definitions, and specifications at all levels of the workforce system helps improve the quality of performance information that is received by the Department. The common performance measures are an integral part of the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) performance accountability system, and ETA will continue to collect from grantees the data on program activities, participants, and outcomes that are necessary for program management and to convey full and accurate information on the performance of workforce programs to policymakers and stakeholders.
There are three sets of changes that are being requested in the extension with revisions to the WIA Management Information and Reporting System. The first are changes to the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD). The second are changes to the quarterly reports (ETA 9090), and the third are changes to the annual report (ETA 9091).
ETA is seeking to make two fundamental changes to the WIASRD. The first is to collect the information quarterly as opposed to annually. This quarterly collection was approved under 1205–0474; however, ETA is seeking to consolidate that collection into this collection as it contains the annual WIASRD. The aggregate American Recovery and Reinvestment Act monthly reports and the quarterly WIASRD collections were approved in 2009 and expired on 1/31/2012. The annual WIASRD collection will no longer be required as it is identical to the 4th quarter WIASRD file. Currently, ETA has separate approvals to collect the quarterly and annual WIASRD files even though the 4th quarter file is the same data file as the annual WIASRD. The second change to the WIASRD is the structure of the file. ETA is requesting permission to modify the WIASRD layout so as to make it completely compatible with the Workforce Investment Streamlined Reporting (WISPR) System individual record layout. The modified WIASRD layout will utilize the exact same variable definitions and data structures as the WISPR individual record layout rendering full scale WISPR implementation much more straightforward and less costly, should that occur at some point in the future. WISPR compatibility also has the advantage of collecting the veterans information necessary for reporting on priority of service for veterans, as well as for monitoring the performance of the Gold Card Initiative, TAP services, and post-9/11 veterans served under WIA.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c) (2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “International Training Application.” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Amelia Vogel, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202–691–5111 (this is not a toll free number).
Amelia Vogel, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202–691–7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The BLS is one of the largest labor statistics organizations in the world and has provided international training since 1945. Each year, the BLS Division of International Technical Cooperation (DITC) conducts seminars of 1 to 2 weeks duration at its training facilities in Washington, DC. In addition to the annual international seminars, DITC provides technical assistance upon request and organizes visits to the BLS for many international visitors each year. The seminars bring together statisticians, economists, analysts, and other data producers and users from countries all over the world. Each seminar is designed to strengthen the participants' ability to collect and analyze economic and labor statistics.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the proposed extension of the International Training Application. Continuing the existing collection will allow the BLS to continue to conduct international seminars. No questions have been added or deleted on the form since the last Office of Management and Budget approval in 2009.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad–17 (17 CFR 240.17Ad–17) requires approximately 477 registered transfer agents to conduct searches using third party database vendors to attempt to locate lost security holders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Friday, September 28, 2012, in Multi-Purpose Room LL–006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:30 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be Webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On September 7, 2012, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33–9358), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes introductory remarks from Commissioners; introductory remarks from Committee officers; and reports from the four Investor Advisory Committee subcommittees (the Investor as Owner subcommittee, the Investor as Purchaser subcommittee, the Investor Education subcommittee, and the Market Structure subcommittee).
For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, the Exchange assesses a Manual Appointment Change Request Fee (the “Fee”) of $50.00 each time a
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 27, 2012, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BATS”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund pursuant to BATS Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by iShares U.S. ETF Trust (“Trust”), which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on June 21, 2011.
The Fund will seek to maximize current income. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,
The Fund will hold Fixed Income Securities of at least 13 non-affiliated issuers.
The Fund will not purchase the securities of issuers conducting their principal business activity in the same industry if, immediately after the purchase and as a result thereof, the value of the Fund's investments in that industry would equal or exceed 25% of the current value of the Fund's total assets, provided that this restriction does not limit the Fund's: (i) Investments in securities of other investment companies; (ii) investments in securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities; or (iii) investments in repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. government securities.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification, and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M. The Fund will not invest in non-U.S. equity securities.
The Fund intends to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets in a diversified portfolio of U.S. dollar-denominated investment grade Fixed Income Securities, rated a minimum of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC and/or Fitch Inc., or Baa3 or higher by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., or, if unrated, determined by the portfolio management team of the Fund to be of equivalent quality.
Fixed Income Securities will primarily include fixed and floating rate debt securities of varying maturities, such as corporate
The Fund will invest in asset-backed and mortgage-backed Fixed Income Securities.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. Under normal circumstances, the effective duration of the Fund's portfolio is expected to be one year or less, as calculated by the Adviser.
In addition to money market securities in which the Fund invests as part of its principal investment strategies, as described above, the Fund may invest in money market securities in a manner consistent with its investment objective in order to help manage cash flows in and out of the Fund, such as in connection with payment of dividends or expenses, and to satisfy margin requirements, to provide collateral or to otherwise back investments in derivative instruments.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities.
Pursuant to the Exemptive Order, the Fund will not invest in swap agreements, futures contracts, or option contracts. The Fund will also not invest in convertible securities or preferred stock, but may invest in currency forwards for hedging against foreign currency exchange rate risk and/or trade settlement purposes.
Additional information regarding the Trust, Shares, and the Fund, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees and expenses, portfolio holdings and disclosure policies, distributions, taxes, and reports to be distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Notice and the Registration Statement, as applicable.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
The Exchange further represents that the Shares are deemed to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made representations, including:
(1) The Shares will be subject to BATS Rule 14.11(i), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) The Exchange's surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, which include Managed Fund Shares, are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular (“Circular”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) BATS Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the IIV is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening
(5) For initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A–3 under the Act.
(6) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities.
(7) Pursuant to the Exemptive Order, the Fund will not invest in swap agreements, futures contracts, or option contracts.
(8) The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
(9) The Fund will not invest in non-U.S. equity securities.
(10) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would allow OCC to become compliant with Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Rule 39.13(g)(8)(i) which requires the margining of segregated futures customer accounts on a gross basis.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B) and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to provide for the margining of OCC segregated futures customer accounts on a gross basis, as required by CFTC Rule 39.13(g)(8)(i).
On October 18, 2011, the CFTC issued final regulations implementing many of the new statutory core principles for CFTC-registered derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”) enacted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). As a registered DCO (as well as a registered securities clearing agency), OCC has previously implemented rule changes designed to bring OCC into compliance with CFTC rules applicable to DCOs that went into effect on January 9, 2012
OCC currently calculates margin requirements for each clearing member's segregated futures customer account held at OCC on a net basis by applying OCC's System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”). STANS calculates margin with respect to each account of a clearing member, including each clearing member's futures customer account(s), on a net basis. STANS includes both a net asset value (“NAV”) component and a risk component. The NAV component marks all positions to market and nets long and short positions to determine the NAV of each clearing member's portfolio of customer positions. The NAV component represents the cost to liquidate the portfolio at current prices by selling the net long positions and buying in the net short positions. The risk component is estimated by means of an expected shortfall risk measure obtained from “Monte Carlo” simulations designed to measure the additional asset value required in any portfolio to eliminate an unacceptable level of risk that the portfolio would liquidate to a deficit.
OCC presently lacks sufficient information about individual customer positions to calculate margin at the level of each individual customer. However, OCC has been coordinating with other DCOs to establish an industry-wide mechanism for complying with the customer gross margin rule. Pursuant to this new system, each DCO's clearing members will submit data files to the DCO identifying positions by numerical customer identifiers.
The proposed changes to OCC's Rules provide for the calculation of margin for segregated futures customer accounts on a gross basis and mandate submission of the clearing member data files necessary to allow OCC to calculate margin at the level of each futures customer. In the event that the data included in these data files is incomplete (for example, if OCC shows positions held in a clearing member's segregated futures accounts, but those positions are not reflected in the data file), OCC will create a separate sub-account to be used for margin calculation purposes only. Positions recorded on OCC's books and records, but not reflected in the data file, will be attributed to this sub-account and a margin amount will be calculated for the sub-account. This margin amount will be added to a clearing member's margin requirement. OCC has determined to adopt this conservative approach to dealing with discrepancies between its own records and clearing member data files in order to ensure that OCC does not collect an inadequate amount of margin from clearing members.
The proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws are consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act because they are designed to permit OCC to perform clearing services for products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC without adversely affecting OCC's obligations with respect to the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions or the protection of securities investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with any rules of OCC.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
OCC has also filed the proposed rule change as an advance notice under Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”).
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed changes raise novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. Proposed changes may be implemented in fewer than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed changes and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed changes on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The proposals contained in the proposed rule change and advance notice shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposals are completed. The clearing agency shall post notice on its web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–OCC–2012–17 and should be submitted on or before October 17, 2012.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07 to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.4 to expand the number of expirations available under the Short Term Option Series Program (“STOS Program”), to allow for the Exchange to delist any series in the STOS that do not have open interest and to expand the number of series in STOS under limited circumstances. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to amend Commentary .07 to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.4 to provide for the ability to open up to five consecutive expirations under the Short Term Option Series Program (“STOS Program”) for trading on the Exchange, to allow for the Exchange to delist any series in the STOS that do not have open interest and to expand the number of series in STOS under limited circumstances when there are no series at least 10% but not more than 30% away from the current price of the underlying security.
Currently, the Exchange may select up to 5 currently listed option classes on which STOS options may be opened in the STOS Program and the Exchange may also match any option classes that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules.
This proposal seeks to allow the Exchange to open STOS option series for up to five consecutive week expirations. The Exchange intends to add a maximum of five consecutive week expirations under the STOS Program, however it will not add a STOS expiration in the same week that a monthly options series expires or, in the case of Quarterly Option Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of Quarterly Option Series on the same class. In other words, the total number of consecutive expirations will be five, including any existing monthly or quarterly expirations.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with trading of an expanded number of expirations that participate in the STOS Program.
In addition, to provide for circumstances where the underlying security has moved such that there are no series that are at least 10% above or below the current price of the underlying security, the Exchange is proposing to add new language to Commentary .07 to provide that the Exchange would delist series with no open interest in both the call and the put series having a: (i) Strike higher than the highest price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month; and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or the call series for a given expiration month, so as to
The Exchange believes that it is important to allow investors to roll existing option positions and ensuring that there are always series at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying security will allow investors the flexibility they need to roll existing positions.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that expanding the STOS Program will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment decisions and hedging decisions in a greater number of securities. The Exchange also believes that expanding the STOS Program will provide the investing public and other market participants with additional opportunities to hedge their investment thus allowing these investors to better manage their risk exposure. While the expansion of the STOS Program will generate additional quote traffic, the Exchange does not believe that this increased traffic will become unmanageable since the proposal remains limited to a fixed number of expirations.
The Exchange believes that the ability to delist series with no open interest in both the call and the put series will benefit investors by devoting the current cap in the number of series to those series that are more closely tailored to the investment decisions and hedging decisions of investors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–NYSEARCA–2012–95 on the subject line.
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options LLC Members Agreement to empower the Volume Dispute Committee to establish principles for determining whether the Exchange has experienced a bona fide systems problem and to adjust certain volume measurements accordingly. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options LLC Members Agreement to empower the Volume Dispute Committee to establish principles for determining whether the Exchange has experienced a bona fide systems problem and to adjust certain volume measurements accordingly.
In 2011, NYSE MKT established NYSE Amex Options LLC (“Company”), a Delaware limited liability company formed by NYSE Euronext, NYSE MKT, and seven Founding Firms,
Under Article II, Section 2.1 of the Members Agreement, for a certain period, each Founding Firm must satisfy certain minimum volume requirements with respect to trading on the options facility. Under the Volume-Based Equity Plan, for each measurement period, the Company issues Annual Incentive Shares. Each Founding Firm is entitled to receive, for no additional consideration, a portion of the Annual Incentive Shares such that it dilutes, maintains or increases its equity interest in the Company (relative to the other Founding Firms) based on the degree to which the Founding Firm has failed to achieve, achieved or exceeded its “Individual Target” during the measurement period. A Founding Firm's Individual Target is its pro rata portion of an aggregate Founding Firm target contribution to the annual volume of the options facility.
Under Article I, Section 1.1 of the Members Agreement, the Individual Target is defined as the product of (i) the Founding Firm aggregate target market share for such measurement period multiplied by (ii) such Founding Firm's Initial Class B Common Interests multiplied by (iii) the Industry Volume for such measurement period. Industry Volume is defined, with respect to any period, as the product of (x) the aggregate U.S. listed securities option exchange volume of cleared transactions in the Products (a contract that is listed for trading on the Exchange) during such period, as reported by the OCC, that are executed and cleared during such period multiplied by (y) two. However, Industry Volume excludes (i) the volume of cleared transactions in the Products during trading days on which trading on the Exchange is halted for certain periods, and (ii) Strategic Transaction Volume, which is designed to exclude certain strategy-based transactions.
Article II, Section 2.4 of the Members Agreement authorizes the Company to establish a Volume Dispute Committee, which has 15 members, one chosen by each of the seven Founding Firms and the remaining eight chosen by the Exchange. Article II, Section 2.4 empowers the Volume Dispute Committee to (i) establish principles for determining the types of transactions for which the Founding Firms are not eligible to receive credit; (ii) establish principles for determining how transaction credits should be allocated among or between the Founding Firms; (iii) review and approve the Strategic Transaction Volume; and (iv) otherwise determine certain other matters with respect to volume-related disputes.
The Exchange believes that if it is experiencing a bona fide systems problem, then there may be situations in which such volume should not be included in calculating Individual Targets or Industry Volume. A bona fide systems problem could include, but is not limited to, an erroneous input that causes the generation of quotes that are substantially away from the quoted national best bid and offer or a problem that causes severe latencies that do not rise to the level of a trading halt but that interfere with a Founding Firm's ability to quote or route orders. Because system problems can take many forms and may not be predictable, the Exchange does not propose to attempt to define what a systems problem is for this purpose. Rather, the Exchange believes that the Volume Dispute Committee should be empowered to establish principles for determining whether a bona fide systems problem occurred on the options facility and for what time period. The Exchange believes that providing the Volume Dispute Committee with such authority will provide the necessary flexibility and structure to resolve disputes about what volume should be counted in such situations.
Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend Article II, Section 2.4(a) of the Members Agreement to empower the Volume Dispute Committee to establish principles for determining whether the Exchange has experienced a bona fide systems problem, and the time period of such bona fide systems problem. In Article 1, Section 1.1 of the Members Agreement, the Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of Industry Volume to provide that the computation of volume would exclude the volume of
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File No. SR–NYSEMKT–2012–47 on the subject line.
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903(h) and related Commentary .10 to expand the number of expirations available under the Short Term Option Series Program (“STOS Program”), to allow for the Exchange to delist any series in the STOS that do not have open interest and to expand the number of series in STOS under limited circumstances. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to amend Rule 903(h) to provide for the ability to open up to five consecutive expirations under the Short Term Option Series Program (“STOS Program”) for trading on the Exchange, to allow for the Exchange to delist any series in the STOS that do not have open interest and to expand the number of series in STOS under limited circumstances when there are no series at least 10% but not more than 30% away from the current price of the underlying security.
Currently, the Exchange may select up to 5 currently listed option classes on which STOS options may be opened in the STOS Program and the Exchange may also match any option classes that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules.
This proposal seeks to allow the Exchange to open STOS option series for up to five consecutive week expirations. The Exchange intends to add a maximum of five consecutive week expirations under the STOS Program, however it will not add a STOS expiration in the same week that a monthly options series expires or, in the case of Quarterly Option Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of Quarterly Option Series on the same class. In other words, the total number of consecutive expirations will be five, including any existing monthly or quarterly expirations.
The Exchange notes that the STOS Program has been well-received by market participants, in particular by retail investors.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with trading of an expanded number of expirations that participate in the STOS Program.
In addition, to provide for circumstances where the underlying security has moved such that there are no series that are at least 10% above or below the current price of the underlying security, the Exchange is proposing to add new language to Commentary .10 to provide that the Exchange would delist series with no open interest in both the call and the put series having a: (i) Strike higher than the highest price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month; and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or the call series for a given expiration month, so as to list series that are at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying security. Further, in the event that all existing series have open interest and there are no series at least 10% above or below the current price of the underlying security, the Exchange may list additional series, in excess of the 30 allowed currently under Commentary .10, that are at least 10% and not more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying security.
The Exchange believes that it is important to allow investors to roll existing option positions and ensuring that there are always series at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying security will allow investors the flexibility they need to roll existing positions.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that expanding the STOS Program will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment decisions and hedging decisions in a greater number of securities.
The Exchange also believes that expanding the STOS Program will provide the investing public and other market participants with additional
The Exchange believes that the ability to delist series with no open interest in both the call and the put series will benefit investors by devoting the current cap in the number of series to those series that are more closely tailored to the investment decisions and hedging decisions of investors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the IPCC in 1988. In accordance with its mandate and as reaffirmed in various decisions by the Panel, the major activity of the IPCC is to prepare comprehensive and up-to-date assessments of policy-relevant scientific, technical, and socio-economic information for understanding the scientific basis of climate change, potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC develops a comprehensive assessment spanning all the above topics approximately every six years. The First Assessment Report was completed in 1990, the Second Assessment Report in 1995, the Third Assessment Report in 2001, and the Fourth Assessment in 2007.
Three working group volumes and a synthesis report comprise the Fifth Assessment Report. Working Group I assesses the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change; Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, potential negative and positive consequences, and options for adapting to it; and Working Group III assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change. Procedures for the IPCC and its preparation of reports can be found at the following Web sites:
In October 2009, the IPCC approved the outline for the Working Group I contribution to the 5th Assessment Report (Working Group I Table of Contents:
As part of the U.S. Government Review of the Second Order Draft of the Working Group I Contribution to the 5th Assessment Report, the U.S. Government is soliciting comments from experts in relevant fields of expertise (Again, the Table of Contents for the Working Group contribution can be viewed here:
Beginning on 7 September, experts may register to review the draft report at:
The United States Global Change Research Program will coordinate collection and compilation of U.S. expert comments and the review of the report by a Review Committee of Federal scientists and program managers in order to develop a consolidated U.S. Government submission, which will be provided to the IPCC by November 30, 2012. Expert comments received within the comment period will be considered for inclusion in the U.S. Government submission. Instructions for review and submission of comments are available at:
Experts may choose to provide comments directly through the IPCC's expert review process, which occurs in parallel with the U.S. government review. More information on the IPCC's comment process can be found at
This certification will be published in the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in “
August 1, 2012, through August 31, 2012.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 1721 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102–2391.
Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238–0423, ext. 306; fax: (717) 238–2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Carrizo (Marcellus), LLC, Pad ID: Wetterling Well #1, ABR–201208001, Owego Town, Tioga County, NY; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.100 mgd; Approval Date: August 3, 2012.
2. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Lorraine, ABR–201208002, Tuscarora Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 6, 2012.
3. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Nina, ABR–201208003, Asylum Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 6, 2012.
4. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Stethers, ABR–201208004, Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 6, 2012.
5. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Harlan, ABR–201208005, Overton Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 6, 2012.
6. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Whitney, ABR–201208006, Rush Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 6, 2012.
7. Anadarko E&P Company LP, Pad ID: Salt Run HC Pad A, ABR–201208007, Cascade Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 10, 2012.
8. Anadarko E&P Company LP, Pad ID: Kenneth L Martin Pad A, ABR–201208008, Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 10, 2012.
9. Anadarko E&P Company LP, Pad ID: Ann C Good Pad A, ABR–201208009, Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 10, 2012.
10. Anadarko E&P Company LP, Pad ID: Red Fox H&FC Pad B, ABR–201208010, Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 10, 2012.
11. Energy Corporation of America, Pad ID: COP 324 A, ABR–201208011, Girard Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 10, 2012.
12. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: BKT, ABR–201208012, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 10, 2012.
13. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Ronmary, ABR–201208013, Elkland Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 10, 2012.
14. XTO Energy Incorporated, Pad ID: PA Tract K, ABR–201208014, Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 24, 2012.
15. Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: McWilliams Unit #6H—#10H Well Pad, ABR–201208015, Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 24, 2012.
16. WPX Energy Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Keenan East Well Pad, ABR–201208016, Choconut Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 28, 2012.
17. WPX Energy Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Malling Well Pad, ABR–201208017, Silver Lake Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 28, 2012.
18. Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Null—Bobst Unit #1H, ABR–
19. Carrizo (Marcellus), LLC, Pad ID: Ricci Well Pad, ABR–201208019, Bridgewater Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.100 mgd; Approval Date: August 28, 2012.
20. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Tufano, ABR–201208020, Overton Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 28, 2012.
21. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Borek, ABR–201208021, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: August 28, 2012.
22. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: SalanskyT P1, ABR–201208022, Gibson Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.575 mgd; Approval Date: August 28, 2012.
23. Talisman Energy USA Inc., Pad ID: 05 258 Kuhlman M, ABR–201208023, Windham Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 28, 2012.
24. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Tague East Drilling Pad, ABR–201208024, Lemon Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.000 mgd; Approval Date: August 31, 2012.
Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 806, 807, and 808.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects rescinded by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
July 1, 2012, through August 31, 2012.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 1721 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102–2391.
Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238–0423, ext. 306; fax: (717) 238–2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, being rescinded for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Gastem USA, Inc., Pad ID: Sheckells 1, ABR–201007044, Cherry Valley Town, Otsego County, NY; Rescind Date: July 5, 2012.
2. Covalent Energy, Inc., Pad ID: Ross 1, ABR–20090818, Maryland Town, Otsego County, NY; Rescind Date: July 5, 2012.
3. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Beardslee 1V, ABR–201008084, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
4. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: BEARDSLEE 2H Pad, ABR–201008085, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
5. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: CASEMAN 1H, ABR–201008103, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
6. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: CASEMAN 2H, ABR–201008104, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
7. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Chapman Pad, ABR–201008125, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
8. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: COP Pad A, ABR–20100531, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
9. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: COP Pad B, ABR–20100645, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
10. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: COP Pad C, ABR–201008027, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
11. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: COP Pad J, ABR–201009022, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
12. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: COP Pad N, ABR–201103001, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
13. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: COP Pad O, ABR–201103030, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
14. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Dodge Pad, ABR–201008086, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
15. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Furman Pad, ABR–201008093, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
16. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: GARVER Pad, ABR–201008053, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
17. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: GEROULD Pad, ABR–201008109, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
18. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: HALSTEAD Pad, ABR–201009060, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
19. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: HOPPAUGH 1V, ABR–20091119, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
20. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Houseknecht 1H Pad, ABR–20090423.1, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
21. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Houseknecht 2H Pad, ABR–20090419, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
22. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Houseknecht 3H Pad, ABR–20090422, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
23. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: JACKSON 1H Pad, ABR–20090053, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
24. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: JBR PARTNERS 1V, ABR–20100555, Saint Marys City, Elk County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
25. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: JOHNSON Pad, ABR–201008100, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
26. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: JONES 1V, ABR–20091203, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
27. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: KENYON 1V, ABR–20091235, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
28. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: KINGSLEY 5H, ABR–201008080, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
29. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: KINGSLEY 6H, ABR–201008081, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
30. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Kingsley 7V Pad, ABR–201008106, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
31. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Lee 4H, ABR–201008105, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
32. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: LIDDELL 1H, ABR–20100157, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
33. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: MacBride Pad, ABR–201008120, Smithfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
34. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Manzek Land Pad, ABR–201008063, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
35. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: MATTOCKS 1V, ABR–20100655, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
36. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: McKEE Pad, ABR–201008092, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
37. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: MULLALY Pad, ABR–201009008, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
38. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Otten Pad, ABR–201008047, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
39. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 10V Pad, ABR–20090719, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
40. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 11V Pad, ABR–20090720, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
41. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 20V Pad, ABR–20100156, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
42. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 21V Pad, ABR–20100427, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
43. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 23H/24H, ABR–20090917.1, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
44. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 28H/29H, ABR–20090918.1, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
45. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 3 Pad, ABR–20090424, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
46. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 4H, ABR–20090501, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
47. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 5H, ABR–20090502, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
48. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 6H, ABR–20090721, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
49. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 7H, ABR–20090722, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
50. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 8H, ABR–20090723, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
51. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 9H, ABR–20090503, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
52. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad A, ABR–201000353, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
53. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad AA, ABR–201110027, Goshen Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
54. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad B, ABR–20100352, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
55. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad Q, ABR–20100551, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
56. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad R, ABR–20100690, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
57. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad S, ABR–201009023, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
58. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad T, ABR–201009039, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
59. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad U, ABR–20100644, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
60. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad Z, ABR–201103024, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
61. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PPHC Pad B, ABR–201103023, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
62. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: ROBBINS Pad, ABR–201009005, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
63. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: ROGERS 1H, ABR–20100512, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
64. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SG Pad P, ABR–201008035, Jones Township, Elk County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
65. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SGL 90A Pad, ABR–201008049, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
66. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SGL 90D Pad, ABR–201103021, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
67. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SGL 90F Pad, ABR–201011026, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
68. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SGL 94 Pad A, ABR–201009030, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
69. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SGL 94C Pad, ABR–201203008, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
70. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SGL 94D Pad, ABR–201203003, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
71. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: SUTHERLAND CHEVROLET 1H, ABR–201011076, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
72. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: W TYLER Pad, ABR–201008154, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
73. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: WATSON Pad, ABR–201008154, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
74. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: WOOD 1H Pad, ABR–201008046, Ridgebury Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
75. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: Ward M 1H, ABR–20090421.1, Springfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Rescind Date: August 28, 2012.
Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 806, 807, and 808.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of Effective Date of Modifications to Certain Textile and Apparel Rules of Origin of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (“CAFTA–DR Agreement”).
Public Law 112–163 modified the rules of origin for certain textile and apparel goods of Parties to the CAFTA–DR Agreement. While these modifications were incorporated into
For further information, please contact Caroyl Miller, Deputy Textile Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, email address:
Public Law 109–53, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the “CAFTA–DR Act”) approved the CAFTA–DR Agreement. Presidential Proclamations 7987 of February 28, 2006, 7991 of March 24, 2006, 7996 of March 31, 2006, 8034 of June 30, 2006, 8111 of March 1, 2007, and 8331 of December, 23 2008, implemented the CAFTA–DR Agreement with respect to the United States and, pursuant to the CAFTA–DR Act, incorporated in the HTS the tariff modifications and rules of origin necessary or appropriate to carry out the CAFTA–DR Agreement. On February 23, 2011, the CAFTA–DR Agreement Free Trade Commission adopted a decision to modify certain rules of origin for textile and apparel products set forth in Annex 4.1 of the CAFTA–DR.
Public Law 112–163 enacted these modifications into the HTS, however, they have not entered into force. The law provides that these modifications apply to goods of a CAFTA–DR Party that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that the USTR determines is the first date on which the equivalent amendments to the rules of origin to the CAFTA–DR have entered into force in all other CAFTA–DR Parties. After making this determination, the USTR is to publish notice of such determination in the
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments on this notice should be received by October 26, 2012: attention OMB/OST Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Ms. Reather Flemmings, Office of the Secretary, Office of International Aviation, Department of Transportation, Special Authorities Division-X46, 202 366–1865, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W–86–445, Washington, DC, 20590 and Torlanda Archer, Office of the Secretary, OIA, 202 366–1037.
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss transport airplane and engine (TAE) issues.
The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 19, 2011, starting at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Arrangements for oral presentations must be made by October 12, 2011.
The Boeing Company, 1200 Wilson Boulevard, Room 234, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
Ralen Gao, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–209, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267–3168, FAX (202) 267–5075, or email at
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463; 5 U.S.C. app. 2), notice is given of an ARAC meeting to be held October 19, 2011.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the availability of meeting room space. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
The FAA will arrange for teleconference service for individuals wishing to join in by teleconference if we receive notice by October 12, 2011. For persons participating by telephone, please contact Ralen Gao by email or phone for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Anyone calling from outside the Arlington, VA, metropolitan area will be responsible for paying long-distance charges.
The public must make arrangements by October 12, 2011, to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the ARAC at any time by providing 25 copies to the person listed in the
If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent.
The FHWA, on behalf of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Riverside County, California. Caltrans will be responsible for production of the EIS in accordance with assignment of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities from DOT to Caltrans pursuant to Section 6005 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU, Pub. L. 109–59).
Comments regarding the proposed action should be provided to Caltrans at the address listed below by no later than October 28, 2012.
Aaron Burton, Senior Environmental Planner, Environmental Studies “B,” California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Planning, 464 West 4th Street, 6th Floor, MS 829, San Bernardino, California 92401–1400; or call (909) 383–2841.
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Caltrans, as the assignee for NEPA compliance, will prepare an EIS on a proposal for a roadway widening project in Riverside County, California. The proposed project would widen Cajalco Road from two to four lanes between Harvill Avenue at the east end and Temescal Canyon Road at the west end, from four to five lanes between Temescal Wash and Temescal Canyon Road, and from four to six lanes between Interstate 215 (I–215) southbound ramps and Harvill Avenue. The purpose of the proposed project is to: (1) To improve the transportation facility to address anticipated growth and mobility needs, as identified in the County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element Policy 1.5; (2) provide improved interregional travel by improving east-west mobility in Riverside County; and (3) to improve roadway alignment and intersection design to enhance safety along Cajalco Road. Alternatives under consideration include: (1) Widening existing Cajalco Road with minor alignment changes between I–215 and Temescal Canyon Road; (2) widening existing Cajalco Road between I–215 and Hollis Lane and between east of Eagle Canyon Road and Temescal Canyon Road, along with constructing a new segment of Cajalco Road between Hollis Lane and east of Eagle Canyon Road; and (3) taking no action. The project covers a length of approximately 16 miles. Anticipated federal approvals for the project include Air Quality Conformity, Section 7,Endangered Species Act, consultation for threatened and endangered species, and a Section 404, Clean Water Act individual permit.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, Participating Agencies, Tribal governments (as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission consultation), and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. The environmental review process is anticipated to be started in late 2012. Public scoping meetings will be held to discuss the alternatives and the potential impacts of the proposed project. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and hearing. The EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to Caltrans at the address provided above.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
Please send your comments by October 26, 2012. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA–2012–0048. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Ms. Vivian Oliver, Transportation Specialist, Office of Information Technology, Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building, 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202–366–2974; email Address:
Background: For-hire Class I motor carriers of passengers (including interstate and intrastate)
The Agency makes the data and information collected publicly available as prescribed in 49 CFR part 369. In the past, the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) issued these regulations pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 11145, 49 U.S.C. 11343(d)(1) and the Bus Regulatory Act of 1982. Later, the authority was transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation on January 1, 1996, by Chapter 141 of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 893 (Dec. 29, 1995)), now codified at 49 U.S.C. 14123. The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) transferred the authority to administer the F&OS program to the former Bureau of Transportation Statistics on September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52192). Pursuant to this authority, the BTS, now part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), became the responsible DOT modal administration for implementing the F&OS program and requirements in 49 CFR part 1420. On September 29, 2004, the Secretary transferred the responsibility for the F&OS program from BTS to FMCSA (69 FR 51009). On August 10, 2006 (71 FR 45740), the Secretary published a final rule that transferred and redesignated the motor carrier financial and statistical reporting regulations of BTS formerly located in chapter XI of title 49 CFR to FMCSA, See 49 CFR part 369.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 12 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions are effective September 26, 2012. The exemptions expire on September 26, 2014.
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202)-366–4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64–224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
On August 6, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (77 FR 46793). That notice listed 12 applicants' case histories. The 12 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 12 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 12 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including retinal scarring, telangiectasis, enucleation, amblyopia, macular scarring, strabismus, loss of vision, and glaucoma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Seven of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The five individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a period of 7 to 32 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 12 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 52 years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in crashes, and two of the drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 6, 2012 notice (77 FR 46793).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA–1998–3637.
We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 12 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes, and two were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 12 applicants listed in the notice of August 6, 2012 (77 FR 46793).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 12 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments were considered and discussed below.
The first individual, Timmeeka Bridges, was in favor of granting the Federal vision exemption to all of the drivers listed in this notice because they have already demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV safely on state highways and a doctor's opinion has supported the applicants.
The second individual, Tyler Nieman, was not in support of granting the Federal vision exemption to all the drivers listed because he feels that that they cannot meet the requirements necessary to drive CMVs on interstate highways and pose a danger on the roads.
In response to the second comment, FMCSA's exemption process supports drivers with vision deficiencies who seek to operate in interstate commerce. In addition, FMSCA relies on the expert medical opinion of the optometrist or ophthalmologist, who are required to attest that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and the medical examiner, who is required to attest that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41. Until the Agency issues a Final Rule, however, drivers with vision deficiencies must continue to apply for exemptions from FMCSA, and request renewals of such exemptions. FMCSA will grant exemptions only to those applicants who meet the specific conditions and comply with all the requirements of the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts Michael J. Bechta (PA), Bryan G. Brockus (ID), Larry Clay NM), Michael D. DeKorte (MI), Eric L. Gomersall (WI), Larry E. Johnsonbaugh, Jr. (PA), Albert Lewis, (AL), John B. Middleton (OH), Ronald W. Patten (ME), Kirk W. Scott (CT), Michael F. Sprouse (SC), and John G. Steedley (GA) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 5 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2012.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0278 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 5 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Atherton, age 64, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted, “I feel that Mr. Atherton has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle as long as he follows all the recommended restrictions.” Mr. Atherton reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 37 years, accumulating 2.7 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; failure to obey a traffic signal.
Mr. Chavez, 47, had a rupture in his left eye due to an injury sustained in 1984. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion vision. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, “I certify, in my medical opinion, that this patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving test required to operate a commercial vehicle and a waiver should be done, because I am aware of that normally you have to have two eyes unless you have a waiver; but he has been doing this for many years without an accident and he is a very reliable and careful driver.” Mr. Chavez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years, accumulating 3.3 million miles. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Arizona. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Foot, 46, has a prosthetic right eye due to traumatic injury sustained in 1970. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, “Based on his excellent vision in the left eye and his long history of driving commercial vehicles, it is in my medical opinion that he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Foot reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 312,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Nevada. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes but one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph.
Mr. McMillen, 50, has scarring in his left eye due to histoplasmosis sustained in 1991. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted, “It is my professional opinion that the defect in Mr. McMillen's left eye will not and has not affected his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, whether commercial or private.” Mr. McMillen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 12,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 24 years, accumulating 960,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes but one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 15 mph.
Mr. Shipler, 66, has retinal damage in his right eye since age 13. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Shipler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business October 26, 2012. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 26, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, Fax (202) 632–7583 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 26, 2012.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, FAX (202) 632–7583 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Dated: September 21, 2012.
By direction of the Secretary.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of changes to systems of records and addition of routine uses.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is proposing four new routine uses applicable to all of its existing systems of records maintained pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974,
Comments on the new system of records, proposed routine uses, and technical and clarifying changes must be received on or before October 26, 2012. The new systems of records, routine uses, and technical and clarifying changes will become effective on November 13, 2012 without further notice, unless comments result in a contrary determination and a notice is published to that effect.
You may submit written comments to PBGC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Margaret E. Drake, Special Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–326–4400 or 1–800–400–7242, extension 3228 (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4400). For access to any of the PBGC's systems of records, contact PBGC's Disclosure Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Disclosure Division, at the above address, 202–326–4040 or 1–800–400–7242.
The PBGC is proposing to add three new systems of records, PBGC–18, Office of Negotiations and Restructuring Risk Management Early Warning (RMEW) System; PBGC–19, Office of General Counsel Legal Management System; and, PBGC–20, Identity Management System. In addition, PBGC is proposing to alter each of its system of records maintained pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974,
PBGC is proposing to amend its Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses by establishing four new general routine uses that will apply to all its systems of records. PBGC's Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses was last published at 75 FR 37842 (June 30, 2010). Proposed routine use G10 will permit PBGC to disclose information to PBGC contractors, consultants, and experts when it is necessary to accomplish an agency function. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to PBGC employees.
Proposed routine use G11 will permit PBGC to disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration and General Services Administration for records management inspections. PBGC is proposing this routine use to allow PBGC to comply with the mandate that PBGC cooperate with records management inspections under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Proposed routine use G12 will permit PBGC to disclose information to any potential or actual source from which information is requested to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the potential or actual source of the purpose(s) of the request, and identify the type of information requested.
Proposed routine use G13 will permit PBGC to disclose information to a Federal agency, in response to a request, when it is needed in connection with a decision regarding hiring, retention, the issuance of a security clearance, conducting a security or suitability investigation, or classifying jobs.
The Privacy Act authorizes the PBGC to adopt routine uses that are consistent with the purpose for which information is collected. 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(7) and (b)(3). OMB, in its initial Privacy Act guidance, also recognized routine uses that are necessary and proper for the efficient conduct of the government and in the best interest of both the individual and the public. 40 FR 28948, 28953 (July 9, 1975). Routine uses to provide for disclosure in connection with performing the agency's mission, allowing the government's Archivist to audit PBGC's records management, gathering information from a source, and providing information to another Federal agency in connection with a personnel or security decision qualify as
In addition to PBGC–1, PBGC–2, PBGC–3, PBGC–4, PBGC–5, PBGC–6, PBGC–8, PBGC–9, PBGC–10, PBGC–11, PBGC–12, PBGC–13, PBGC–14, PBGC–15, PBGC–16, and PBGC–17 discussed below, proposed routine uses G10, G11, G12, and G13 will apply to PBGC–18, Office of Negotiations and Restructuring Risk Management Early Warning (RMEW) System; PBGC–19, Office of General Counsel Legal Management System; and, PBGC–20, Identification Management System.
For PBGC–3, Employee Payroll, Leave, and Attendance Records, PBGC is adding the following routine uses: (1) Allowing disclosure to the Department of Labor (this routine use was deleted in the June 30, 2010 publication, but PBGC has since determined that it is still necessary); (2) allowing disclosure to the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, and collection agencies in connection with debt collection from current and former PBGC employees who owe PBGC money. While PBGC is authorized to disclose this information under its system of records entitled, PBGC–13, Debt Collection, PBGC feels that it is prudent to also place current and former employees on notice in this system of records.
PBGC is proposing three new routine uses under its system of records entitled PBGC–4, Employee Travel Records. The first proposed routine use will permit PBGC to disclose information to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in connection with employee transit benefits. The second proposed routine use will permit PBGC to disclose information to the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, and collection agencies in connection with debt collection from current and former PBGC employees who owe PBGC money. While PBGC is authorized to disclose this information under its system of records entitled, PBGC–13, Debt Collection, PBGC feels that it is prudent to also place current and former employees on notice in this system of records. The third proposed routine use will permit PBGC to disclose personal credit card information to various parties in connection with making travel arrangements related to an employee's official duties.
PBGC is proposing to move six routine uses from its system of records entitled PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC to its system if records entitled, PBGC–9, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Address Identification File. These six routine uses address the disclosure of information to locate plan participants and beneficiaries in pension plans trusteed by PBGC.
In addition, PBGC is proposing two new routine uses permitting PBGC to periodically disclose the names, Social Security Numbers, and date of birth to the Social Security Administration and the Department Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt when there is a question about whether a participant or beneficiary is eligible for a benefit paid by PBGC.
To protect the privacy of individuals, disclosure of PBGC records under the routine use will be made under an Interagency Agreement subjecting the Social Security Administration and Bureau of Public Debt and their employees and contractors to criminal penalties under the Privacy Act. The Interagency Agreement will provide that the records disclosed by PBGC will be used exclusively for retrieving the data specified by PBGC and that either records will not be retained by the agency or it must be returned to PBGC or destroyed when the process is completed.
PBGC is proposing to move six routine uses from its system of records entitled, PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data, to its system of records entitled, PBGC–9, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Address Identification File. PBGC has a statutory obligation to pay pension benefits for plans it trustees and, at times, needs assistance to locate participants and beneficiaries when PBGC does not have a current address. These six routine uses permit PBGC to disclose certain information to various parties, including the public, for assistance in locating “missing” participants and beneficiaries. These routine uses have been included under PBGC's system of records entitled PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data, which contains current information participants and beneficiaries; however, they are better located under PBGC–9, which was established locate updated contact information for “missing” participants and beneficiaries.
PBGC is proposing to add a routine use under its system of records entitled PBGC–11, Call Detail Records. The new routine use will permit PBGC to disclose information from this system to the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, a credit agency, and a debt collection firm in connection with debts owed as a result of unauthorized long-distance calls made on PBGC equipment. While PBGC is authorized to disclose this information under its system of records entitled, PBGC–13, Debt Collection, PBGC feels that it is prudent to also place current and former employees and contractors on notice in this system of records.
PBGC is proposing to add two routine uses under its system of records entitled, PBGC–13, Debt Collection. The first proposed routine use will permit PBGC to disclose the nature of the debt, the name, address, and phone numbers of individuals and companies owing a debt to the PBGC to a debt collection firm. To protect the privacy of individuals, disclosure of PBGC records under this routine use will be made under a contract subjecting the firm and its employees to the criminal penalties of the Privacy Act. The contract will provide that the PBGC records will be used exclusively to collect the debts indicated by PBGC and must be returned to PBGC at the conclusion of the debt collection effort.
The second proposed routine use will permit PBGC to disclose information to any Federal, state, or local agency, U.S. territory or commonwealth, or the District of Columbia to collect debts owed to PBGC. This routine use is being proposed following PBGC's update to its debt collection regulations.
PBGC is proposing to add a new routine use under its system of records entitle PBGC–15, Emergency Notification Records. This proposed routine use will permit PBGC to disclose records maintained in the system to family members, emergency medical personnel, or to law enforcement in the case of a medical or other emergency.
PBGC is proposing to establish a new system of records entitled “PBGC–18, Office of Negotiations and Restructuring Risk Management Early Warning
OCC and CFRD, as they have always done, will continue to respect the privacy of individuals named in these files and will disclose, within the boundaries of the law, the least amount of information necessary to perform its responsibilities.
The collection and maintenance of records subject to this system are not new because records of the same type have been collected and maintained in the OCC and CFRD since the agency's establishment. Those records, however, were not maintained or retrieved by a name or other personal identifier. With the implementation of a new electronic records management system, these records will now be in a system of records, as defined in
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposal. A report on the proposed system has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
PBGC is proposing to establish a new system of records entitled “PBGC–19, Office of General Counsel Legal Management System.” The proposed system of records is necessary to the functions performed by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and will cover only those files that identify by name, or other personal identifier, individuals who are sources of information for or subjects of litigation relating to ERISA Title IV, labor and employment, and procurement matters. These files may include reports; copies of financial and contractual records; background data including personnel records, witness statements, summonses and subpoenas, discovery requests and responses, and resumes; ethics advice; and breach reports and supporting documentation. OGC, as it has always done, will continue to respect the privacy of individuals named in these files and will disclose, within the boundaries of the law, the least amount of information necessary to perform its responsibilities.
The collection and maintenance of records subject to this system are not new because records of the same type have been collected and maintained in the OGC since the agency's establishment. Those records, however, were not maintained or retrieved by a name or other personal identifier. With the implementation of a new electronic records management system, these records will now be in a system of records, as defined in
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposal. A report on the proposed system has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
PBGC is proposing to establish a new system of records entitled “PBGC–20, Identification Management System.” The proposed system of records is necessary to the functions performed by the Facilities and Services Department (FASD), and will cover only those files that identify by name, or other personal identifier, individuals who require regular, ongoing access to agency facilities, information technology systems, or information classified in the interest of national security, including applicants for employment or contracts, federal employees, contractors, students, interns, and volunteers, and individuals formerly in any of these positions. The system also includes individuals authorized to perform or use services provided in agency facilities (e.g., Fitness Center). The files may contain information about background investigations, biometric data, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card issuance, and PIV card use, including entrance and exit from PBGC facilities. This information may be used to: (a) Ensure the safety and security of PBGC facilities, systems, or information, and our occupants and users; (b) verify that all persons entering federal facilities, using federal information resources, or accessing classified information are authorized to do so; and, (c) track and control PIV cards issued to persons entering and exiting the facilities, using systems, or accessing classified information.
FASD, as it has always done, will continue to respect the privacy of individuals named in these files and will disclose, within the boundaries of the law, the least amount of information necessary to perform its responsibilities.
The collection and maintenance of records subject to this system are not new because records of the same type have been collected and maintained in FASD since its establishment. Those records, however, were not maintained or retrieved by a name or other personal identifier. With the implementation of an electronic records management system, these records will now be in a system of records, as defined in
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposal. A report on the proposed system has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
In addition to establishing new general routine uses G10, G11, G12, and G13, PBGC is amending PBGC–1, Correspondence Between the PBGC and Persons Outside of the PBGC—PBGC, PBGC–2, Disbursements—PBGC, PBGC–3, Employee Payroll, Leave and Attendance Records–PBGC, PBGC–4, Employee Travel Records—PBGC, PBGC–5, Personnel Files—PBGC, PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC, PBGC–8, Employee Relations Files—PBGC, PBGC–9, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Address Identification File—PBGC, PBGC–10, Administrative Appeals File—PBGC, PBGC–11, Call Detail Records—PBGC, PBGC–12, Security Investigation Records—PBGC, PBGC–13, Debt Collection—PBGC,
For the convenience of the public, PBGC's Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses with proposed general routine uses G10, G11, G12, and G13 and the amended systems of records are published in full below with changes italicized.
The following routine uses are incorporated by reference into various systems of records, as set forth below.
G1. Routine Use—Law Enforcement: In the event that a system of records maintained by the PBGC to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be disclosed to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
G2. Routine Use—Disclosure When Requesting Information: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a federal, state, or local agency or to another public or private source maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, if and to the extent necessary to obtain information relevant to a PBGC decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, or the letting of a contract.
G3. Routine Use—Disclosure of Existence of Record Information: With the approval of the Director, Human Resources Department (or his or her designee), the fact that this system of records includes information relevant to a federal agency's decision in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit may be disclosed to that federal agency.
G4. Routine Use—Disclosure in Litigation: A record from this system of records may be disclosed in a proceeding before a court or other adjudicative body in which the PBGC, an employee of the PBGC in his or her official capacity, or an employee of the PBGC in his or her individual capacity if the PBGC (or the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)) has agreed to represent him or her is a party, or the United States or any other federal agency is a party and the PBGC determines that it has an interest in the proceeding, if the PBGC determines that the record is relevant to the proceeding and that the use is compatible with the purpose for which the PBGC collected the information.
G5. Routine Use—Disclosure to the Department of Justice in Litigation: When the PBGC, an employee of the PBGC in his or her official capacity, or an employee of the PBGC in his or her individual capacity whom the PBGC has agreed to represent is a party to a proceeding before a court or other adjudicative body, or the United States or any other federal agency is a party and the PBGC determines that it has an interest in the proceeding, a record from this system of records may be disclosed to the DOJ if the PBGC is consulting with the DOJ regarding the proceeding or has decided that the DOJ will represent the PBGC, or its interest, in the proceeding and the PBGC determines that the record is relevant to the proceeding and that the use is compatible with the purpose for which the PBGC collected the information.
G6. Routine Use—Disclosure to OMB: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A–19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
G7. Routine Use—Congressional Inquiries: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of the individual.
G8. Routine Use—Disclosure to Labor Organizations: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 when necessary for the labor organization to perform properly its duties as the collective bargaining representative of PBGC employees in the bargaining unit.
G9. Routine Use–Disclosure in Response to a Federal Data Breach. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) PBGC suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) PBGC has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the PBGC or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with PBGC's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Correspondence Between the PBGC and Persons Outside the PBGC—PBGC.
Not Applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026 and Iron Mountain Inc., 8001 Research Way, Springfield, VA 22153.
Individuals who have corresponded with the PBGC and with components of the PBGC, and individuals who have received replies in response to their correspondence with the PBGC.
Correspondence containing the name and address of the correspondent.
29 U.S.C. 1302,
This system of records is maintained for programmatic and regulatory purposes (including use in adjudicatory proceedings).
General Routine Uses G1 through
None.
Records are maintained manually in file folders and/or
Records are indexed by
Paper records are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Records relating to persons covered by this system are retained
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable PBGC media sanitization practice.
Correspondence is kept by the director of the department to which the correspondence was addressed or the director of the department who replied. These department directors are: General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel; Inspector General, Office of Inspector General; Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel; Director, Policy and Research Department; Director, Communications and Public Affairs Department; Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department; Director, Financial Operations Department; Director, Budget and Organizational Performance Department; Director, Procurement Department; Director, Contract and Controls Review Department; Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology;
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Individuals writing to the PBGC and the PBGC's responses.
None.
Disbursements—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026;
Individuals who are consultants and vendors to the PBGC.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is maintained for use in determining amounts to be paid and in effecting payments by the Department of the Treasury to consultants and vendors.
1. A record from this system of records may be transmitted to the United States Department of Treasury to effect payments to consultants and vendors.
2. General Routine Uses G1 through G7, G9
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(f) (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)).
Records are maintained
Records are indexed by name,
Records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and are protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Director, Financial Operation Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Individuals who are consultants and vendors to the PBGC.
None.
Employee Payroll, Leave, and Attendance Records—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Current and former employees of the PBGC.
Names; addresses; social security numbers and employee numbers; and notifications of personnel actions.
Co-owner and/or beneficiary of bonds; marital status and number of dependents;
The records listed herein are included only as pertinent or applicable to the individual employee.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101;
This system of records is maintained to perform functions involving employee leave, attendance, and payments, including determinations relating to the amounts to be paid to employees, the distribution of pay according to employee directions (for savings bonds and allotments, to financial institutions, and for other authorized purposes), and tax withholdings and other authorized deductions, and for statistical purposes.
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the United States Department of the Interior,
2.
3. General Routine Uses G1 through G
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(f) (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)).
Records are maintained manually in file folders and/or in automated form, including
Records are indexed by name and/or employee
Manual records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning
Records are maintained for
Director, Financial Operations Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Subject individual and the Office of Personnel Management.
None.
Employee Travel Records—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Current, former,
5 U.S.C. 6701; 29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101;
This system of records is maintained to perform functions related to travel on behalf of the PBGC, including determinations involving travel authorization and arrangements, and documentation of travel advances and reimbursements.
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the United States Department of
2.
3.
4.
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(f) (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)).
Records are maintained
Records are indexed by name
Records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer network and protected by assigning
Records are maintained for
Director, Financial Operations Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Current
None.
Personnel
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Employees
Personnel records that the PBGC maintains
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101
General Routine Uses G1 through G
None.
Records are maintained in paper form in file folders and/or in electronic form, including magnetic tapes and discs.
Records are indexed by name.
Access is restricted to agency personnel or contractors whose responsibilities require access. Paper records are kept in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Temporary personnel file records are destroyed when
Records are also maintained on network back-up tapes.
Director, Human Resources Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Subject individuals, present and past employers, and references given by any subject individuals.
None.
Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026 and/or field benefit administrator, plan administrator, and paying agent worksites.
Participants
Names, addresses, telephone numbers, sex, social security numbers and other Social Security Administration information, dates of birth, dates of hire, salary, marital status, domestic relations orders, time of plan participation, eligibility status, pay status, benefit data, health-related information, insurance information where plan benefits are provided by private insurers, pension plan names and numbers,
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1321, 1322, 1322a, 1341, 1342 and 1350;
This system of records is maintained for use in determining whether participants
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to third parties, such as banks, insurance companies, or trustees, to
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, in furtherance of proceedings under Title IV of ERISA, to a contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor or successor, and any member of the same controlled group.
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, upon request for a purpose authorized under Title IV of ERISA, to an official of a labor organization recognized as the collective bargaining representative of the individual about whom a request is made.
4.
5. The name and social security number of a participant employed or formerly employed as a pilot by a commercial airline may be disclosed to the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to obtain information relevant to the participant's eligibility or continued eligibility for disability benefits.
6. The name of a participant's pension plan, the actual or estimated amount of a participant's benefit under Title IV of ERISA, the form(s) in which the benefit is payable, and whether the participant is currently receiving benefit payments under the plan or (if not) the earliest date(s) such payments could commence may be disclosed to the participant's spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent solely to obtain a qualified domestic relations order under 29 U.S.C. 1056(d) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p). The PBGC will disclose the information only upon the receipt of a notarized, written request by a prospective alternate payee
7. Information from a participant's initial determination under 29 CFR 4003.1(b) (excluding the participant's address, telephone number, social security number, and any sensitive medical information) may be disclosed to an alternate payee
8. The names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth
9. The names, addresses, social security numbers, and dates of birth of eligible PBGC pension recipients residing in a particular state may be disclosed to the state's workforce agency if the agency received a National Emergency Grant from the Department of Labor under the Workforce Investment Act of 1988 to provide health insurance coverage assistance and support services for state residents under 29 U.S.C. 2918(a) and (f).
12. General Routine Uses G1 and G4 through G7, G9, and
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(f) (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)).
Records are maintained in paper,
Records are indexed by plan
Paper
Director, Benefit Administration and Payments Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in the PBGC's regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Plan administrators, participants,
None.
Employee Relations Files—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Current and former PBGC employees with respect to whom the PBGC has initiated a reduction-in-force or a disciplinary or performance-based action; and, PBGC employees who have initiated grievances under an
Notices of
29 U.S.C. 1302;
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority,
2. General Routine Uses G1 through
None.
Records are maintained in paper form in file folders and/or in electronic form, including magnetic tapes or discs.
Records are indexed by employee name.
Access is restricted to agency personnel or contractors whose responsibilities require access. Paper records are kept in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Registers and related records used to effect reduction-in-force actions are maintained
Records are also maintained on PBGC's network back-up tapes.
Director, Human Resources Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Records in this system of records are provided by an affected employee, the employee's supervisors,
None.
Plan Participant and Beneficiary Address Identification File—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Certain participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries in terminating and terminated pension plans covered by Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
Names, social security numbers, addresses,
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1321, 1322, 1322a, 1341, 1342, and 1350;
This system of records is maintained to locate participants,
None.
Records are maintained manually in file folders and/or in electronic form, including magnetic tapes or discs.
Records are indexed by participant or beneficiary name and social security number.
Records are kept in locked file cabinets in areas of restricted access under procedures that meet IRS safeguarding standards. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Records of a participant or beneficiary who verifies the address are transferred to PBGC–6. All other records are retained for 2 years.
Director, Benefits Administration and Payments Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
PBGC–6,
None.
Administrative Appeals File—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Participants, beneficiaries,
Names of pension plans,
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1321, 1322, 1322a, 1341, 1342, 1345, and 1350.
This system of records is maintained for use in appeals of matters specified in
1. General Routine Uses G1,
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to third parties who may be aggrieved by the decision of the Appeals Board under 29 CFR 4003.57.
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, upon request, to an attorney representative or a non-attorney representative
4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to third parties, such as banks, insurance companies, and trustees, to make benefit payments to plan participants, beneficiaries,
5. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to third parties, such as contractors and expert
6. The name and social security number of a participant may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization recognized as the collective bargaining representative of the participant to obtain information relevant to the resolution of an appeal.
None.
Records are maintained manually in file folders and/or in electronic form.
Records are indexed by participant, beneficiary,
Paper records are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Manager of the Appeals Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Information in this system of records may be received from the plan administrator; the contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor, successor, or member of the same controlled group; the labor organization recognized as the collective bargaining representative of a participant; the SSA; a third party affected by the decision;
None.
Call Detail Records—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Employees, contract employees,
Records relating to
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is maintained to control the costs of operating PBGC's telephone system by, among other things, monitoring telephone usage by PBGC employees and other covered individuals and obtaining reimbursement for unauthorized toll calls.
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to
2.
3. General Routine Uses G1, G3, G4, G5, G7 through
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(
Records are maintained in file folders and in electronic form, including magnetic tapes and discs.
Records are retrieved by name of employee or other covered individual, telephone extension number,
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Telephone and PBGC-issued portable electronic device assignment records; call detail listings; and private telephone billing information.
None.
Personnel Security Investigation Records—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
This system of records is distinct from the OPM's Privacy Act system of records, OPM/Central–9 (Personnel Investigation Records), which covers records of personnel security investigations conducted by the OPM with respect to employees or applicants for employment with the PBGC.
29 U.S.C. 1302;
The records in this system of records are used to document and support decisions as to the suitability, eligibility, and fitness for service of applicants for federal employment and contract positions, and may include students, interns, or volunteers to the extent their duties require access to federal facilities, information, systems, or applications.
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to an authorized source from which information is requested in the course of an investigation, to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the nature and purpose of the investigation, or identify the type of information requested.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to carry out its authorized functions (under 5 U.S.C. 1103, 1204, and 7105, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e–4, in that order).
3. General Routine Uses G1 through
None.
Records are maintained in paper and electronic form,
Records are
Paper records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning
Director, Facilities and Services Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Information contained in this system of records is obtained from the following: (a) Applications and other personnel and security forms; (b) personal interviews with the individual that is the subject of the investigation and with persons such as employers, references, neighbors, and associates who may have information about the subject of the investigation; (c) investigative records and notices of
This system of records is exempt from the access and contest and certain other provisions of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I), and (f)) to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the PBGC under an express promise of confidentiality or, prior to September 27, 1975, under an implied promise of confidentiality (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5)).
Debt Collection—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026 and/or field benefit administrator,
Anyone who may owe a debt to PBGC, including but not limited to:
29 U.S.C. 1302; 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) & (g); 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is maintained for the purpose of collecting debts owed to PBGC by various individuals, including, but not limited to,
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the United States Department of
2.
3.
a.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
b.
c.
d.
4. General Routine Uses G1 through
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e)
Records are maintained
Records are indexed by any one or more of the following: Employer identification number; social security number; plan number; and name of debtor, plan, plan sponsor, plan
Records are also maintained on PBGC's network back-up tapes.
Director, Financial Operations Department,
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Subject individual, plan administrators, labor organization officials,
None.
My Plan Administration Account Authentication Records—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Individuals who register to use the My PAA application to make PBGC filings and payments electronically via the PBGC's Internet Web site (
Records include the user's name, work telephone number, work email address, other contact information, a temporary PBGC-issued user ID and password, a user-selected user ID and password, and a secret question/secret answer combination for authentication. Records maintained for each pension plan for which the user intends to participate in making filings with the PBGC include the plan name, employer identification number (EIN), and plan number (PN); the plan administrator's name, address, phone number, and email address; other contact information; and the role that the user will play in the filing process,
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1306, 1307, 1341, and 1343; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is maintained for use in verifying the identity of, and authenticating actions taken by, individuals who register to use the My PAA application to make PBGC filings.
PBGC General Routine Uses G1, G4, G5, G6, G7, G9,
None.
Records are maintained in
Records are indexed by name, user ID,
The PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with the PBGC's Automated Information Systems Security Program to protect the security, integrity, and availability of the information, and to assure that records are not disclosed to unauthorized individuals.
Director, Financial Operations Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
An individual may access his or her records via the My PAA application available on the PBGC's Internet Web site (
Same as notification procedure.
Subject individual and other registered users.
None.
PBGC–15, Emergency Notification Records—PBGC.
Not applicable
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
PBGC employees and individuals who work for PBGC as contractors or as employees of contractors.
Records include name, title, organizational component, employer, PBGC and personal telephone numbers, PBGC and personal email addresses, other contact information, user ID, a temporary, PBGC-issued password, and a user-selected password.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; Executive Order 12656, 53 FR 47491 (1988); Presidential Decision Directive 67 (1998).
This system of records is maintained for use in notifying PBGC employees and individuals who work for PBGC as contractors or employees of contractors of PBGC's operating status in the event of an emergency, natural disaster or other event affecting PBGC operations; for contacting employees or contractors who are out of the office on leave or after regular duty hours to obtain information necessary for official business; or to contact friends or family members if an employee or contractor experiences a medical emergency in the workplace.
1. PBGC General Routine Uses G1, G4, G5, G7, G9
2.
None.
Records are maintained an electronic database that is available to authorized PBGC employees and contractors who have been granted access to PBGC's intranet Web site. Paper printouts are also maintained by authorized PBGC personnel in accordance with PBGC's continuity of operations plan.
Records are indexed by name, organizational component, or user ID and password.
The PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with the PBGC's Automated Information Systems Security Program to protect the security, integrity, and availability of the information, and to assure that paper and electronic records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Records are maintained until they are superseded or obsolete.
Director, Facilities and Services Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
An employee or contractor may access his or her record with a valid user-id and password via the electronic notification and messaging system through PBGC's intranet Web site, or by following the procedures outlined at 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Subject individual.
None.
PBGC–16,
Not applicable
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
PBGC employees
29 U.S.C. 1302;
This system of records is used by PBGC employees and employees of PBGC's contractors to identify other PBGC employees by name,
PBGC General Routine Uses G1 through
Not applicable.
Records are maintained in electronic format in database that is available to authorized PBGC employees and employees of PBGC's contractors who have been granted access to PBGC's
Records are retrieved by name,
The PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls to protect the security, integrity, and availability of information maintained in electronic format, and to assure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by anyone who does not have a need-to-know to perform official duties.
Records are maintained until the subject leaves PBGC employment.
Director, Communications and Public Affairs Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedures.
Same as notification procedure.
Subject individual and PBGC personnel records.
None.
PBGC–17, Office of Inspector General Investigative File System—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Office of Inspector General, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington DC, 20005–4026; Washington National Records Center, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, MD 20746–8001; Iron Mountain Inc., 8001 Research Way, Springfield, VA 22153.
1. Persons who are named individuals in investigations conducted by OIG.
2. Complainants and subjects of complaints collected through the operation of the OIG Hotline.
3. Other individuals, including witnesses, sources, and members of the general public, who are named individuals in connection with investigations conducted by OIG.
Information within this system relates to OIG investigations carried out under applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures. The investigations may relate to criminal, civil, or administrative matters. These OIG files may contain investigative reports; copies of personnel, financial, contractual, and property management records maintained by PBGC; information submitted by or about pension plan sponsors or plan participants; background data including arrest records, statements of informants and witnesses, and laboratory reports of evidence analysis; search warrants, summonses and subpoenas; and other information related to investigations. Personal data in the system may consist of names, Social Security numbers, addresses, fingerprints, handwriting samples, reports of confidential informants, physical identifying data, voiceprints, polygraph tests, photographs, and individual personnel and payroll information.
5 U.S.C. App. 3.
This system of records is used to maintain information related to investigations of criminal, civil, or administrative matters.
PBGC General Routine Uses G1, G2, G4, G5, G7, G9,
1. A record relating to a person held in custody pending or during arraignment, trial, sentence, or extradition proceedings or after conviction may be disclosed to a federal, state, local, or foreign prison; probation, parole, or pardon authority; or any other agency or individual involved with the maintenance, transportation, or release of such a person.
2. A record relating to a case or matter may be disclosed to an actual or potential party or his or her attorney for the purpose of negotiation or discussion on such matters as settlement of the case or matter, plea bargaining, or informal discovery proceedings.
3. A record may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, when reasonably necessary to elicit information or obtain the cooperation of a witness or informant when conducting any official investigation or during a trial or hearing or when preparing for a trial or hearing.
4. A record relating to a case or matter may be disclosed to a foreign country, through the United States Department of State or directly to the representative of such country, under an international treaty, convention, or executive agreement; or to the extent necessary to assist such country in apprehending or returning a fugitive to a jurisdiction that seeks that individual's return.
5. A record originating exclusively within this system of records may be disclosed to other federal offices of inspectors general and councils comprising officials from other federal offices of inspectors general, as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The purpose is to ensure that OIG audit and investigative operations can be subject to integrity and efficiency peer reviews, and to permit other offices of inspectors general to investigate and report on allegations of misconduct by senior OIG officials as directed by a council, the President, or Congress. Records originating from any other PBGC systems of records, which may be duplicated in or incorporated into this system, also may be disclosed with all personally identifiable information redacted.
6. A record may be disclosed to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice when the OIG seeks an
7. A record may be disclosed to any governmental, professional or licensing authority when such record reflects on qualifications, either moral, educational or vocational, of an individual seeking to be licensed or to maintain a license.
8. A record may be disclosed to any direct or indirect recipient of federal funds, e.g., a contractor, where such record reflects problems with the personnel working for a recipient, and disclosure of the record is made to permit a recipient to take corrective action beneficial to the Government.
A record may be disclosed to a “consumer reporting agency,” as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)), to obtain
The information in the records is maintained in a variety of media, including paper, magnetic tapes or discs, and an automated database. The records are maintained in limited access areas
Records are also maintained on magnetic tapes and back-up hard drives.
Records are indexed by name,
Paper records, computers, and computer-storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card-key systems, or other physical-access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer-logon identifications, and operating-system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file-management software.
1. Official investigative case files, evidence and custody files, and informant files are retained up to 11 years after closeout of the investigation. If significant, the files are transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration.
2. Information reports, investigative analysis reports, and inquiry files are retained up to 6 years after closeout of the investigation.
3. Internal administrative reports are retained up to 3 years after closeout of the investigation.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable PBGC media sanitization practice.
Inspector General, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC, 20005–4026.
The information contained in this system may be derived or received from individual complainants, witnesses, interviews conducted during investigations, Federal, state and local government records, individual or company records, claim and payment files, employer medical records, insurance records, court records, articles from publications, financial data, bank information, telephone data, insurers, service providers, other law enforcement organizations, grantees and subgrantees, contractors and subcontractors, pension plan sponsors and participants, and other sources.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), PBGC has established regulations at 29 CFR 4902.11 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose.
PBGC–18, Office of Negotiation and Restructuring Risk Management Early Warning System—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Office of Negotiations and Restructuring, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington DC, 20005–4026; Iron Mountain Inc., 8001 Research Way, Springfield, VA 22153.
1. Persons who are participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees in pension plans covered by Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”).
2. Pension plan sponsors, administrators, control group members and third parties, who are responsible for, manage, or have control over ERISA pension plans.
3. Other individuals, including information sources and members of the general public, who are identified in connection with investigations conducted pursuant to ERISA Section 4003(a), 29 U.S.C. 1303(a), and litigation conducted with regard to ERISA Title IV pension plans.
Information within this system relates to Corporate Finance and Restructuring Division (“CFRD”), Office of the Chief Counsel (“OCC”), and PBGC investigations and litigation carried out under applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures concerning the potential termination and trusteeship of ERISA Title IV pension plans, as well as civil or administrative matters concerning companies or individuals associated with ERISA Title IV pension plans. These files may include reports; copies of financial and contractual records; background data including witness statements, summonses and subpoenas; and other information related to investigations and litigation. Personal data in the system may consist of names, gender, dates of birth, dates of hire, salary, marital status (including domestic relation orders), Social Security numbers and other Social Security Administration information, addresses, telephone numbers, time of plan participation, pay status, benefit data, eligibility status, health-related information, insurance information (where plan benefits are guaranteed by private insurers), initial and final PBGC determinations (29 CFR 4003.21 and 4003.59), federal income and other tax records, and information provided by labor unions or other organizations.
29 U.S.C. Sections 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1303, 1310, 1321, 1322, 1322a, 1341, 1342, 1343 and 1350; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is used to maintain information related to investigations and litigation associated with the potential termination and trusteeship of ERISA pension plans.
1. PBGC General Routine Uses G1, G4, G5, G6, G7, G9
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, in furtherance of proceedings under Title IV of ERISA, to a contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor or successor, and any member of the same controlled group.
None.
The information in the records is maintained in a variety of media, including paper, magnetic tapes or discs, and an automated, electronic database.
Records are indexed by name or other personal identifier or assigned case number.
Paper records are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by (1) assigning network user identification numbers to the individuals and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically; and, (2) assigning system user identification numbers to the individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Core case file records contain records accumulated, prepared, collected or received, are destroyed, if not electric files, 40 years after the case is closed, and if electric files, 135 years after the case is closed.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable PBGC media sanitization practice.
Director, Office of Negotiations and Restructuring, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC, 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in the PBGC's regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
None.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
The information contained in this system may be derived or received from pension plan participants, sponsors, administrators or third-parties, federal government records, individual or company records, claim and payment files, insurers, the Social Security Administration, labor organizations, firms or agencies providing locator services, court records, articles from publications, financial data, bank information, telephone data, and USPS licensees.
None.
PBGC–19, Office of General Counsel Case Management System—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Office of General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026; Iron Mountain Inc., 8001 Research Way, Springfield, VA 22153.
1. Persons who are participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees in pension plans covered by Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”).
2. Pension plan sponsors, administrators, control group members and third parties, who are responsible for, manage, or have control over ERISA pension plans.
3. Other individuals, including information sources and members of the general public, who are identified in connection with investigations conducted pursuant to ERISA Section 4003(a), 29 U.S.C. 1303(a), and litigation conducted with regard to ERISA pension plans.
4. Persons who are parties, plaintiff or defendant, or witnesses in civil litigation or administrative proceedings involving or concerning the PBGC or its officers or employees. This system does not include information on every civil litigation or administrative proceeding involving the PBGC or its officers and employees.
5. Persons who are the subject of a breach of personally identifiable information.
6. Persons who are potential contractors or contractors with PBGC.
7. Persons who receive ethics advice from PBGC ethics counselors and those who file financial disclosure reports.
Records in this system pertain to a broad variety of litigation relating to ERISA Title IV, the appeals of pension benefit determinations, labor and employment, and procurement matters. These files may include reports; copies of financial and contractual records; background data including personnel records, witness statements, summonses and subpoenas, discovery requests and responses, and resumes; ethics advice; and breach reports and supporting documentation. Personal data in the system may consist of names, gender, dates of birth, dates of hire, dates of death, salary, marital status (including domestic relation orders), medical records, Social Security numbers and other Social Security Administration information, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses; time of plan participation, pay status, benefit data, eligibility status, health-related information, insurance information (where plan benefits are guaranteed by private insurers), initial and final PBGC determinations (29 CFR 4003.21 and 4003.59), appeals of PBGC final determinations; and information provided by labor unions or other organizations.
29 U.S.C. Sections 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1303, 1310, 1321, 1322, 1322a, 1341, 1342, 1343 and 1350; 5 U.S.C. app. 105; 5 U.S.C. 301; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
Case records are maintained for the purpose of litigating or resolving any case or matter handled by the Office of the General Counsel. Ethics records document the activities of PBGC's ethics program, including financial disclosure reports; ethics agreements; outside employment and activity records; referrals of violations of criminal conflict of interest statutes; ethics determination, advice, consultation, and training records; and other commonly held ethics program records. The privacy breach reports and supporting documentation allow for program officials to determine whether the agency can improve the protection of personally identifiable information and to mitigate any breaches.
PBGC General Routine Uses G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8, G9
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, in furtherance of proceedings under Title IV of ERISA, to a contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor or successor, and any member of the same controlled group.
2. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of employees, former employees, participants, and beneficiaries and information pertaining to debts to the PBGC may be disclosed to the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, a credit agency, and a debt collection firm to collect the debt. Disclosure to a debt collection firm shall be made only under a contract that binds any such contractor or employee of such contractor to the criminal penalties of the Privacy Act.
3. Information may be disclosed to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations in response to a court order or in connection with criminal law proceedings.
4. Information may be provided to a congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
5. Information may be provided to third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
6. Relevant and necessary information may be disclosed to a former employee of PBGC for the purposes of: (1) Responding to an official inquiry by federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority; or, (2) facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where PBGC requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
7. A record relating to a case or matter may be disseminated to a foreign country pursuant to an international treaty or convention entered into and ratified by the United States or to an executive agreement.
8. A record may be disseminated to a foreign country, through the United states Department of State or directly to the representative of such country, to the extent necessary to assist such country in civil or criminal proceedings in which the United States or one of its officers or agencies has an interest.
None.
The information in the records is maintained in a variety of media, including paper, magnetic tapes or discs, and an automated, electronic database.
Records are indexed by name or other personal identifier or assigned case number.
Paper records are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning unique user identification numbers to individuals who are authorized to access the records, and by passwords set by these users that must be changed periodically.
1. Pursuant to NARA General Records Schedule 25.1, ethics advice is destroyed and deleted 6 years after the end of the fiscal year after the matter was closed. Public and Confidential Financial Disclosure reports are destroyed and deleted 6 years after they are filed with the agency.
2. Pursuant to PBGC's Simplified Records Schedule 1.7, legal administrative records such as legal memoranda and other legal advice materials which are not part of a litigation matter and which are critical to an understanding of that matter are destroyed or deleted 20 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the latest document use occurred.
3. Pursuant to PBGC's Simplified Records Schedule 1.8, legal administrative records which have been associated with a non-ERISA litigation case, such as agreements and financial instruments, background case files, investigation and case management files, and official litigation, together with all other records with which they have been associated by the case number or identifier, are destroyed or deleted 15 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the case or matter was finished or closed.
4. Pursuant to PBGC's Simplified Records Schedule 2.3, core case mission-related file records, such as ERISA litigation, plan terminations, and benefits, and which are accumulated, prepared, collected or received, are destroyed, if not electric files, 40 years after the case is closed, and if electric files, 135 years after the case is closed.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable PBGC media sanitization practice.
Assistant General Counsel of Legal Technology and Administration, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in the PBGC's regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
None.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
The information contained in this system may be derived or received from pension plan participants, sponsors, administrators or third-parties, federal government records, employees and former employees, contractors, witnesses, individual or company records, claim and payment files, insurers, the Social Security Administration, labor organizations, court records, articles from publications, financial data, bank information, telephone data.
None.
Identity Management System (IDMS).
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026. Siemens Industry, Inc., 6435 Virginia Manor Road, Beltsville, MD 20705.
Most identity records are not classified. However, in some cases,
Individuals who require regular, ongoing access to agency facilities, information technology systems, or information classified in the interest of national security, including applicants for employment or contracts, federal employees, contractors, students, interns, and volunteers, and individuals formerly in any of these positions. The system also includes individuals authorized to perform or use services provided in agency facilities (e.g., Fitness Center). The system does not apply to occasional visitors or short-term guests to whom PBGC will issue temporary identification and credentials.
Records maintained on individuals issued credentials by PBGC include the following data fields: Full name, Social Security number; date of birth; signature; image (photograph); fingerprints; hair color; eye color; height; weight; organization/office of assignment; company name; telephone number; copy of background investigation form; Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card issue and expiration dates; personal identification number (PIN); results of background investigation; PIV request form; PIV registrar approval signature; PIV card serial number; emergency responder designation; PIV card expiration date; copies of documents used to verify identification or information derived from those documents such as document title, document issuing authority, document number, document expiration date, document other information; and, level of national security clearance and expiration date.
Records maintained on card holders entering PBGC facilities: Name, PIV Card serial number; date, time, and location of entry and exit; company name; and, level of national security clearance and expiration date.
5 U.S.C. 301; Federal Information Security Act (Pub. L. 104–106, sec. 5113); Electronic Government Act (Pub. L. 104–347, sec. 203); the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501); and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105–277, 44 U.S.C. 3504); Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors, August 27, 2004; Federal Property and Administrative Act of 1949, as amended.
The primary purposes of the system are: (a) To ensure the safety and security of PBGC facilities, systems, or information, and our occupants and users; (b) To verify that all persons entering federal facilities, using federal information resources, or accessing classified information are authorized to do so; (c) to track and control PIV cards issued to persons entering and exiting the facilities, using systems, or accessing classified information.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), and:
(1) Except as noted on Forms SF 85, 85–P, and 86, when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate public authority, whether Federal, foreign, State, local, or tribal, or otherwise, responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving entity.
(2) To notify another federal agency when, or verify whether, a PIV card is no longer valid.
(3) General Routine Uses G1
Not applicable.
Records are stored in electronic media and in paper files.
Records are retrievable by name, Social Security number, PIV card serial number, image (photograph), fingerprint.
Paper records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning
GSA maintains an audit trail which is reviewed periodically to identify unauthorized access. Persons given roles in the PIV process must complete training specific to their roles to ensure they are knowledgeable about how to input and protect individually identifiable information.
Records relating to persons covered by this system are retained in accordance with General Records Schedule 18, Item 17. Unless retained for specific, ongoing security investigations, records of access are maintained for two years. All other records relating to employees are destroyed two years after ID security card expiration date.
In accordance with HSPD–12, PIV Cards are deactivated within 18 hours of cardholder separation, loss of card, or expiration. The information on PIV Cards is maintained in accordance with General Records Schedule 11, Item 4. PIV Cards are destroyed by shredding 90 days after deactivation.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable PBGC media sanitization practice.
Director, Facilities and Services Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedures.
Same as notification procedures.
Employee, contractor, or applicant; sponsoring agency; former sponsoring agency; other federal agencies; contract employer; former employer.
None.