National Agricultural Statistics Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Labor Statistics Bureau
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Direct final rule.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes by removing a regulation that is obsolete and no longer used. The revision to this rule are part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open government Web site at
This direct final rule is effective on December 3, 2012. Comments due on or before November 5, 2012. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments must be identified with RIN 2700-AD78 and may be sent to NASA via the
Nanette Jennings, 202-358-0819.
NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes to remove sections from the Code of Federal Regulations that are obsolete and no longer used. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
On January 18, 2011, President Obama signed EO 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, directing agencies to develop a plan for a retrospective analysis of existing regulations. NASA developed its plan and published it on the Agency's open Government Web site at
Section 506, Delegation of Authority to License the Use of the Centennial of Flight Commission Name—The Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act of 1999 (the Act), Public Law 105-389, as amended by Public Law 106-68, was issued to establish the U.S. Centennial Flight Commission to assist in commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright brothers' first powered flight at Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, and to serve as a national and international source for activities commemorating this historic event. The Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, were two Americans credited with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight on December 17, 1903. Therefore, to plan for these commemorative activities, the Act authorized the NASA Administrator use of the Centennial of Flight Commission's name on any logo, emblem, seal, or descriptive or designating mark, after consultation with the Commission, in connection with the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight. Section 506 was promulgated to delegate the authority of the NASA Administrator to the Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, without authority for further delegation. With this authority, NASA used the Centennial of Flight Commission's name on its exhibits, educational, historical and experimental programs and materials to support a year-long commemoration that started in December 2002. NASA's recognition of the Centennial ended December 17, 2003. Therefore, this section is no longer needed.
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of NASA to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). EO 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of EO 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
EO 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the EO. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.
Authority delegations.
Accordingly, under the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended, NASA amends 14 CFR part 1204 as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Direct final rule.
This rule makes non-substantive changes to NASA rules governing implementation of the Privacy Act by updating statute citations, position titles, terminology, and adjusting appellate responsibility for records held by the NASA Office of the Inspector General. This revision is part of NASA's retrospective plan under EO 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open Government Web site at
This rule is effective on December 3, 2012, unless adverse comments are received by November 5, 2012. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments must be identified with RIN 2700-AD86 and may be sent to NASA via the
Patti Stockman, Office of the Chief Information Officer, 202-358-4787.
NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes to remove sections from the Code of Federal Regulations that are obsolete and no longer used. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
This rule was last published in the
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20101(a), authorizes the NASA Administrator to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any
Privacy, Procedural rules.
Accordingly, NASA amends 14 CFR part 1212 as follows:
The National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended, 51 U.S.C. 20101
The revisions read as follows:
The procedures outlined in this subpart 1212.2 apply to the following types of requests made by individuals under the Privacy Act concerning records about themselves:
The revisions read as follows:
(e) If the Center Privacy Manager receives a request for access, the Privacy Manager will record the date of receipt and immediately forward the request to the responsible system manager for handling.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) The Associate Deputy Administrator or designee is responsible for making final determinations of appeals as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section for all Agency records, with the exception of those records originating in the Office of the Inspector General for which the Inspector General is responsible for making final determinations of appeals.
* * * This is not to be construed to require the withholding of names and addresses otherwise permitted to be made public.
(a) * * * Safeguards must insure the security and confidentiality of records and protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained.
The revision reads as follows:
The Inspector General is responsible for:
(a) Making final Agency determinations on appeals related to records originating with the Office of the Inspector General (§ 1212.400), and
(b) Authorizing an extension for making a final determination on an appeal related to records originating with the Office of the Inspector General (§ 1212.400(e)).
The revision reads as follows:
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) Establish a position of Center Privacy Manager to assist in carrying out the responsibilities listed in this section.
(a) * * *
(1) Overall compliance with this part, NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 1382.17 and NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 1382.1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) during August 2012 and to reflect a change of sponsor's address for Baxter Healthcare Corp. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable.
This rule is effective October 4, 2012.
George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9019,
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect original and supplemental approval actions during August 2012, as listed in table 1 of this document. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the Center for Veterinary Medicine FOIA Electronic Reading Room. FOI Summaries may be found listed by application number at:
Also, Baxter Healthcare Corp., 95 Spring St., New Providence, NJ 07974, has informed FDA of a change of address to One Baxter Pkwy., Deerfield, IL 60015. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect this change.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
(f) * * *
(8) * * *
(iv) Tilmicosin alone or in combination as in § 558.618.
(e) * * *
(1)
(2)
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Final rule; delay of effective date; suspension.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) announces the delay of the effective date of a rule published in the
The effective date for amendments to §§ 542.7 and 542.16 in the final rule published October 10, 2008, 73 FR 60492, delayed October 9, 2009, at 74 FR 52138, September 10, 2010, at 75 FR 55269, and August 30, 2011, at 76 FR 53817, is further delayed until April 22, 2014. Section 543.3(c)(3) is suspended until 11:59 p.m. October, 21, 2012. Submit comments on or before October 11, 2012.
Send comments to Jennifer Ward, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005; email:
Jennifer Ward, Attorney, NIGC Office of General Counsel, at (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066 (not toll-free numbers).
Congress established the National Indian Gaming Commission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 2701-21 (IGRA), to regulate gaming on Indian lands. The NIGC published a final rule on September 21, 2012, that will supersede the existing part 543, Minimum Internal Control Standards Class II Gaming, with comprehensive and updated standards, effective October 22, 2012. The 2012 rule also provides up to 18 months for operations to implement the new standards.
During this transition period, the Commission desires to maintain the existing standards in part 542, as they apply to Class II gaming. Some of these standards, § 542.7 (Bingo) and § 542.16 (Information technology) are scheduled to be removed effective October 12, 2012 in accordance with the final rule, published on October 10, 2008. (73 FR 60492; delayed by 74 FR 52138, 75 FR 55269, and 76 FR 53817). In order to preserve regulation for these areas during the transition period, the Commission delays the effective date for removing §§ 542.7 and 542.16 until April 22, 2014.
Similarly, the 2008 final rule also set forth a requirement at § 543.3(c)(3) that required tribal operators to come into compliance with tribal internal control standards within a certain timeframe. This deadline was also extended numerous times, most recently by 76 FR 53817, to October 12, 2012. (74 FR 52138, 75 FR 55269, and 76 FR 53817). Rather than requiring operations to implement standards for the ten days before the 2012 final rule takes effect, the Commission suspends § 543.3(c)(3) until 11:59 p.m. October 21, 2012, after which time the standard will be overwritten by the final rule published on September 21, 2012 (77 FR 58708).
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions, nor will the rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501
Accounting, Gambling, Indian—Indian lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Gambling, Indian—Indian lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, under the authority at 25 U.S.C. 2701, 2702, 2706,
25 U.S.C. 2701
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving the fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on November 5, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0151. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On July 31, 2012 (77 FR 45304), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the Virginia SIP revision. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia on April 4, 2008.
The 2002 base year emissions inventory submitted by VDEQ on April 4, 2008 includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NO
EPA is approving the 2002 base year PM
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 December 3, 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 the PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(f) EPA approves as a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Virginia portion of the Washington DC-MD-VA 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon (the State). The submission addresses transportation conformity requirements. EPA is approving the submission in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act).
This action is effective on November 5, 2012.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number: EPA-R10-OAR2010-0912. All documents in the docket are listed on the
John Chi at telephone number: (206) 553-1230, or Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone number: (206) 553-6121, email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
On June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32481), EPA proposed to approve a SIP revision that revises the State of Oregon's (the State) transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of certain transportation related control and mitigation measures. Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the Act to ensure that federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Transportation conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A of the Act, for the following transportation related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM
Oregon's SIP revision updates the State's transportation conformity provisions, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 252, to be consistent with the Act as amended by the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390). Oregon's SIP revision also adds a provision that requires approval by the air quality agency in order for a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to shorten the timeframe of a conformity determination (OAR-340-252-0070). EPA has reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for transportation conformity and interagency consultation and has concluded that the submittal is approvable with the exception of two sentences providing an example in OAR-340-252-0070 for shortening the conformity timeframe. Details of our review are set forth in a technical support document (TSD), which has been included in the docket for this action. Specifically, in the TSD, the EPA identifies how the submitted procedures, as clarified by the State's August 31, 2011, supplementary letter, satisfy the requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency consultation with respect to the development of transportation plans and programs, SIPs, and conformity determinations, the resolution of conflicts, and the provision of adequate public consultation, and our requirements under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for enforceability of control measures and mitigation measures.
No relevant adverse comment was received on the proposal and today EPA is taking final action to approve the proposed SIP amendments without change.
EPA is approving the SIP revision that was submitted by the State of Oregon on October 6, 2010, with the exception of an example in OAR-340-252-0070 for shortening the conformity timeframe as discussed in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA is also taking no action on OAR-340-200-0040 (Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan), which was included in the State's SIP submission, because this section merely describes the State's procedures for adopting its SIP and incorporates by reference all of the revisions adopted by Oregon's Environmental Quality commission for approval into the Oregon SIP (as a matter of state law).
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 3,
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(139) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Based on a SIP revision submitted by Oregon on October 6, 2010, and later supplemented in a letter submitted by the state on August 31, 2011, the following provisions from Oregon's Adminstrative Rules (OAR), Division 252, “Transportation Conformity,” are removed from the SIP.
(1) The following provisions, as effective October 14, 1999, are replaced by revised provisions effective March 5, 2010, Rules 340: 252-0030, 252-0060, 252-0070 (except the last two sentences), and 252-0230.
(2) The following provisions, as effective October 14, 1999, are removed without replacement, Rules 340: 252-0020 (except paragraph (3)), 252-0040, 252-0050 (except paragraphs (4) & (5)(b)), 252-0080, 252-0090, 252-0100 (except paragraphs (3) through (6)), 252-0110, 252-0120, 252-0130, 252-0140, 252-0150, 252-0160, 252-0170, 252-0180, 252-0190 (except paragraph (5)), 252-0200 (except paragraph (6)(c)), 252-0210 (except paragraph (1)(b)), 252-0220 (except paragraphs (1)(a) & (2)), 252-0240, 252-0250 (except paragraph (2)), 252-0260, 252-0270, 252-0280, and 252-0290.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Correction of final rule.
This document corrects technical errors in the final rule titled “Administrative Simplification: Adoption of a Standard for a Unique Health Plan Identifier; Addition to the National Provider Identifier Requirements; and a Change to the Compliance Date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS) Medical Data Code Sets” that appeared in the September 5, 2012
Kari Gaare (410) 786-8612.
In FR Doc. 2012-21238 of September 5, 2012 (77 FR 54664), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the final rule published on September 5, 2012. Accordingly, the corrections are effective on November 5, 2012.
In FR Doc. 2012-21238 of September 5, 2102, there were the following errors:
On page 54674, in our discussion of the adoption of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard, we inadvertently mischaracterized a public comment. In the final rule, we used the phrase “capacity but was concerned” instead of “capacity and was concerned.”
On page 54708, in our discussion of HPID savings, we referenced Table 14, which provides the cost in 2014 of a 1-year delay in the compliance date of ICD-10, rather than Table 10, which provides annual costs savings for providers from an increase in the volume of three electronic transactions due to the use of HPID.
On page 54714, in our discussion of the net cost avoidance associated with a 1-year delay of ICD-10, we inadvertently referenced Table 17, which provides a summary of the cost avoidance and costs in 2014 of a 1-year delay in the compliance date of ICD-10 rather than Table 18, which provides the cost avoidance less cost (net) of a 1-year delay in the compliance date of ICD-10.
On page 54719, in § 162.504, we made the following errors:
• In paragraph (a), we inadvertently stated that the compliance date for covered entities to comply with the implementation specification in § 162.510 is no later than November 5, 2014 instead of November 7, 2016.
• In paragraph (b)(1), we inadvertently omitted language describing the type of health plan subject to the regulatory requirement.
• In paragraph (b)(2), we inadvertently stated that the compliance date for small health plans was no later than November 5, 2014 instead of November 5, 2015.
On page 54679, in the HPID effective date and compliance requirements section of the September 5, 2012 final rule, we describe and discuss our final policy for HPID compliance. While we inadvertently inserted incorrect dates in the regulation text, the HPID effective date and compliance requirements are clearly stated in the preamble, as well as Chart 1 (see 77 FR 54679). The final policy, which is clearly reflected in the preamble discussion, is that health plans that are not small health plans must obtain HPIDs by November 5, 2014. Small health plans must obtain HPIDs by November 5, 2015. All
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment procedures. This correcting document corrects technical and typographical errors in the preamble and regulations text of the September 5, 2012 final rule and does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule.
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such procedures. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule would be unnecessary, as we are not altering the policies that were already subject to comment and finalized in our final rule, but simply conforming our regulation text to our final policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment procedures.
In FR Doc. 2012-21238 of September 5, 2012 (77 FR 54664), make the following corrections:
1. On page 54674, third column, second full paragraph, lines 15 and 16, the phrase “capacity but was concerned” is corrected to read “capacity and was concerned”.
2. On page 54708, lower quarter of the page (after Table 9), third column, first partial paragraph, line 1, the reference “Table 14” is corrected to read “Table 10”.
3. On page 54714, third column, fourth full paragraph, line 1, the reference “Table 17” is corrected to read “Table 18”.
1. On page 54719, in the second column—
a. Sixth full paragraph (§ 162.504(a)), line 4, the date “November 5, 2014” is corrected to read “November 7, 2016”.
b. Eighth paragraph (§ 162.504(b)(1)), the sentence “A health plan that November 5, 2014.” is corrected to read “A health plan that is not a small health plan— November 5, 2014.”.
c. Ninth paragraph (§ 162.504(b)(2)), last line, the date “November 5, 2014” is corrected to read “November 5, 2015”.
Federal Communications Commission.
Correcting amendments.
This document contains a correction to the final regulations of the Commission's rules, which were published in the
Effective October 4, 2012.
Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 559-5158 (voice/videophone), or email
The Federal Communications Commission published a document amending 47 CFR 64.604 in the
As published, the final regulations inadvertently referenced inaccurate regulatory text which may prove to be confusing and needs to be corrected accordingly.
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Accordingly, 47 CFR part 64 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, and 620 unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary orders; inseason orders.
NMFS publishes Fraser River salmon inseason orders to regulate treaty and non-treaty (all citizen) commercial salmon fisheries in U.S. waters. The orders were issued by the Fraser River Panel (Panel) of the Pacific Salmon Commission (Commission) and subsequently approved and issued by NMFS during the 2012 salmon fisheries within the U.S. Fraser River Panel Area. These orders established fishing dates, times, and areas for the gear types of U.S. treaty Indian and all citizen commercial fisheries during the period the Panel exercised jurisdiction over these fisheries.
The effective dates for the inseason orders are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Orders.
Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.
The Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada concerning Pacific Salmon was signed at Ottawa on January 28, 1985, and subsequently was given effect in the United States by the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act (Act) at 16 U.S.C. 3631-3644.
Under authority of the Act, Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart F provide a framework for the implementation of certain regulations of the Commission and inseason orders of the Commission's Fraser River Panel for U.S. sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser River Panel Area.
The regulations close the U.S. portion of the Fraser River Panel Area to U.S. sockeye salmon tribal and non-tribal commercial fishing unless opened by Panel orders that are given effect by inseason regulations published by NMFS. During the fishing season, NMFS may issue regulations that establish fishing times and areas consistent with the Commission agreements and inseason orders of the Panel. Such orders must be consistent with domestic legal obligations and are issued by Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS. Official notification of these inseason actions is provided by two telephone hotline numbers described at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1) and in 77 FR 25915 (May 2, 2012). The inseason orders are published in the
The following inseason orders were adopted by the Panel and issued for U.S. fisheries by NMFS during the 2012 fishing season. Each of the following inseason actions was effective upon announcement on telephone hotline numbers as specified at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1) and in 77 FR 25246 (May 2, 2012); those dates and times are listed herein. The times listed are local times, and the areas designated are Puget Sound Management and Catch Reporting Areas as defined in the Washington State Administrative Code at Chapter 220-22.
Relinquish regulatory control of all United States Panel Area waters effective 12:01 a.m., Sunday, September 2, 2012.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for the inseason orders to be issued without affording the public prior notice and opportunity for comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for comments is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable because NMFS has insufficient time to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment between the time the stock abundance information is available to determine how much fishing can be allowed and the time the fishery must open and close in order to harvest the appropriate amount of fish while they are available.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), of the inseason orders. A delay in the effective date of the inseason orders would not allow fishers appropriately controlled access to the available fish at that time they are available.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 300.97, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 3636(b).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS implements the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendation 11-08, which prohibits retaining, transshipping, or landing of silky sharks (
Effective November 5, 2012.
Supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and others, such as the Fishery Management Plans described below, may be downloaded from the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division Web site at
Peter Cooper or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301-427-8503 or by fax: 301-713-1917.
The U.S. Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
At the 22nd Regular Meeting of ICCAT in 2011, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 11-08 (the “Recommendation by ICCAT on the Conservation of Silky Sharks Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries”), which requires the United States to initiate rulemaking in order to fulfill obligations as a Contracting Party to the Convention. Recommendation 11-08 requires fishing vessels operating in ICCAT-managed fisheries to release all silky sharks whether dead or alive, and prohibits retaining on board, transshipping, or landing any part or whole carcass of a silky shark (
Further background information, including the need for these silky shark management measures, was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 37647, June 22, 2012) and is not repeated here.
NMFS prepared an EA/RIR/FRFA, which presents and analyzes anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of each alternative contained in this final rule. The complete list of alternatives and related analyses is provided in the EA/RIR/FRFA, and is not repeated here. A copy of the EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action is available from NMFS (see
In this final action, NMFS prohibits the retention of silky sharks on Atlantic HMS commercially-permitted vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board. As described in the Changes from the Proposed Rule section below, this final action also prohibits the retention of silky sharks on vessels that are issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit, when tuna, swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel. Additionally, as described in the response to comments below and in the EA, NMFS prohibits the storing, selling, or purchasing of silky sharks to facilitate domestic compliance and enforcement.
NMFS received five written public comments on the proposed rule. There were no attendees at the public hearing held via conference call on July 9, 2012. Below, NMFS summarizes and responds to all comments made specifically on the proposed rule.
In the process of making the point above, one commenter incorrectly quoted the text of ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 as “prohibit retaining onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of silky sharks taken in the Convention Area in association with ICCAT fisheries.”
U.S. commercial shark fisheries using gear other than pelagic longline currently are managed through a variety of measures, including quotas and subquotas, seasons, retention limits, gear restrictions, and time/area closures. Although silky sharks could be caught on handgear, bottom longline, or gillnet gear, these gears directly target sharks and are not used in association with ICCAT fisheries. Additionally, while it is possible to catch tuna and tuna-like species using handgear, bottom longline, and gillnet gear, this rarely occurs when these gear types are used to target sharks. For example, data from observed bottom longline and gillnet trips show bycatch of two sailfish, no swordfish, and no managed tunas in 2010 (NMFS, 2011) and three bigeye tuna and one skipjack tuna in 2011 (Gulak, 2012; Hale
Because there are three separate ICCAT shark recommendations with similar language, NMFS would like to clarify the differences in the text to reduce potential confusion. Under Recommendation 10-07, ICCAT parties are required to “prohibit retaining onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks in any fishery.” Under Recommendation 10-08, ICCAT parties are required to “prohibit retaining onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of hammerhead sharks of the family
An analysis of the 2006-2010 HMS logbook data indicates that, on average, a total of 60 silky sharks are kept per year. An additional 1,417 silky sharks per year were caught (on average) and subsequently discarded (676 released alive and 742 discarded dead, on average). NMFS does not expect the actual number caught (1,477 per year on average) to change as a result of this action because fishermen participating in the pelagic longline fishery do not target or retain large numbers of silky sharks now and charter vessels typically do not target or land silky sharks when they have tunas or tuna-like species on board. NMFS estimates that, of the 60 silky sharks that are currently retained (on average), 17 (29 percent) would be released alive as a result of this rulemaking. The number of silky sharks discarded dead would increase slightly (from 742 to 785, on average) since pelagic longline vessels would no longer be able to retain any silky sharks, and one or two silky sharks might have to be released by vessels with the specified HMS Charter/Headboat and commercial shark permit combination. In addition, current regulations require that when HMS are released, they be released in a manner that will ensure maximum probability of survival, without removing the fish from the water. This is consistent with the provision of Recommendation 11-08 to promptly release silky sharks unharmed.
NMFS has undertaken management measures for all Atlantic HMS species fully consistent with its legal obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other relevant statutes.
The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 includes a provision that urges international fishery management organizations to which the United States is a member to adopt shark conservation measures, including measures to prohibit removal of any of the fins of a shark and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea.
For example, in the case of shortfin mako, where the United States' contribution to the overall fishing mortality is small relative to other ICCAT Parties, developing effective multilateral shark management measures can be an effective tool for ending overfishing of the entire shortfin mako stock. This approach is also consistent with National Standard 3 that states that to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.
The main objective of the FAO IPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA) is to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. It calls on members to “strive to cooperate through regional and subregional fisheries organizations or arrangements, and other forms of cooperation, with a view to ensuring the sustainability of shark stocks, including, where appropriate, the development of subregional or regional shark plans.” The IPOA calls on nations to implement a National Plan of Action that among other things should aim to ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable as well as identify and provide special attention in particular to vulnerable or threatened shark stocks. The IPOA provision regarding the “full use of dead sharks” referenced by the commenter is also an attribute that the FAO IPOA recommends for inclusion in a nation's national plan of action. In 2001, the United States developed and implemented the U.S. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks in consultation with stakeholders. While it may be appropriate to require full utilization of certain species, the Ecological Risk Assessment highlighted that silky sharks are vulnerable due to limited productivity and susceptible to capture in pelagic longline fisheries such that ICCAT adopted a ban on retention. NMFS acknowledges that while this ban on retention may lead to some dead discards, the release of additional live silky sharks is expected to assist with sustainability of the resource.
While NMFS usually conducts shark stock assessments through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process, some pelagic sharks have been assessed by ICCAT's SCRS and because the United States is only one of numerous ICCAT Parties that catch silky sharks, it would be appropriate for
During the preparation of the final rule and in response to public comments about the scope of the proposed rule, NMFS determined that, to make the action consistent with the August 29, 2011 action that implemented similar ICCAT Recommendations regarding certain hammerhead sharks and oceanic whitetip sharks (76 FR 53652), and to align the rule with the regulated community's understanding of its application, the regulatory language associated with this action needed to be revised to specify that the prohibition on retention also applies to a small number of vessels (currently five) that are issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit when tuna, swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel. This measure is necessary to ensure consistency across implementation of ICCAT recommendations and to enhance compliance and enforcement. These vessels, however, generally do not target or land silky sharks when they have tunas or tuna-like species on board. This modification does not change the environmental or economic impacts described in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the proposed action.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
NMFS prepared an environmental assessment for this rule that analyzes the impact of the action on the environment. In this action, NMFS prohibits retaining, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or purchasing silky sharks in the commercial ICCAT fisheries, primarily the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species. A copy of the environmental assessment is available from NMFS (see
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
In compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The full FRFA and analysis of economic and ecological impacts are available from NMFS (see
In compliance with section 604(a)(1) of the RFA, the purpose of this rulemaking is, consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, to implement ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 pursuant to ATCA and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This rulemaking implements the 2011 silky shark recommendation in the Atlantic HMS fisheries that target tuna and tuna-like species because NMFS considers these fisheries to be ICCAT fisheries, which are the fisheries to which the recommendation specifically applies. The regulatory changes would affect the commercial ICCAT fisheries, primarily the Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This action is necessary to implement ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 pursuant to ATCA. Under ATCA, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations.
Adding prohibitions beyond those called for under Recommendation 11-08 would make this action consistent with the approach NMFS has taken for oceanic whitetip sharks and scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead sharks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species. Adding the prohibitions against storing, selling and purchasing silky sharks under the specified circumstances would, by making the regulations consistent with those in place for oceanic whitetip and scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead sharks, make the regulations easier to remember and thus would help fishermen and dealers and improve compliance. The additions would enhance enforcement of the prohibition, particularly where prohibited retention is not initially detected at sea or during landing. Finally, the extension of the prohibition against the sale and purchase should help to reduce the market for silky sharks and encourage compliance with the prohibition on retention. Therefore, this action is intended to implement Recommendation 11-08 in a manner that meets our obligations under ICCAT and ATCA consistent with our management authority for HMS fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Consolidated HMS FMP.
Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires agencies to summarize significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, the agency's assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments.
There were no direct public comments raising significant issues in response to the IRFA. However, three public comments were received regarding the potential for increased regulatory discards by prohibiting the retention of silky sharks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery.
NMFS calculated that this action would lead to a total estimated average annual increase in silky shark discards
One commenter questioned the silky shark fin price per pound and annual estimate of silky shark landings in the analysis for the proposed rule. See Comment 9 and the corresponding response above and in Section 12 of the EA/RIR/FRFA.
No changes were made in the rule resulting from public comments in response to the IRFA.
Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined a “small” fishing entity as one with average annual receipts of less than $4.0 million; a small charter/party boat entity is one with average annual receipts of less than $6.5 million; a small wholesale dealer as one with 100 or fewer employees; and a small seafood processor as one with 500 or fewer employees. This action would apply primarily to all participants in the Atlantic HMS commercial fisheries that have pelagic longline gear onboard, permitted shark dealers, and a small number of vessels (currently five) that are issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit, when tuna, swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel. These vessels and dealers are all considered small fishing entities under the SBA definition. However, Charter/Headboat vessels generally do not target or land silky sharks when they have tunas or tuna-like species on board. As of October 2011, 242 pelagic longline vessels held an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, and 117 dealers held an Atlantic shark dealer permit. Including the vessels issued both HMS Charter/Headboat permits and commercial shark permits in the prohibition against silky shark retention does not affect this number because those vessels do not use longline gear.
Under section 604(a)(4) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements.
Under section 604(a)(5) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe any alternatives to the rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are discussed below and in Chapters 4 and 6 of the EA/RIR/FRFA. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of “significant” alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this final rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first, second, and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third category. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationale for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objective.
NMFS prepared a FRFA to analyze the impacts on small entities of the alternatives for implementing the ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 for all domestic fishing categories that target tuna and tuna-like species. Specifically, the FRFA assesses the impacts of the various alternatives on pelagic longline vessels, which are the only vessels that participate in the Atlantic HMS commercial fishery that target tuna and tuna-like species, all of which are considered small entities. NMFS considered and analyzed three alternatives including Alternative 1 (no action); Alternative 2 (implementing ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 in the commercial ICCAT fisheries); and Alternative 3 (implementing ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 and additional prohibitions against storing, selling, and purchasing of silky sharks in the commercial ICCAT fisheries).
Under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, there would be no economic impacts to HMS pelagic longline vessels fishing for tuna and tuna-like species. Under this alternative, commercial pelagic longline vessels that fish for tuna and tuna-like species that are also currently authorized to land silky sharks would be able to continue that practice. Commercial pelagic longline fishermen would continue to be able to land silky sharks and could potentially earn $485 per vessel per year. Additionally, each vessel is predicted to earn a total of $190,986 per year in revenue from swordfish and tuna ($96,525 from swordfish and $94,461 from tuna). Therefore, revenues from silky shark sales are minor (<1 percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue. Alternative 1 would not implement ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 and, therefore, is inconsistent with NMFS' obligations to promulgate regulations, as necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. Because of this inconsistency, Alternative 1 is not a preferred alternative.
Under Alternative 2, pelagic longline vessel operators and owners could not retain, transship, or land silky sharks, consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 11-08. Thus, on
Under Alternative 3, pelagic longline vessel owners and operators could not retain, transship, land, sell, or store silky sharks, consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 and other domestic regulations. This alternative is essentially the same as Alternative 2 but would facilitate domestic compliance and enforcement. Thus, on average, each vessel would lose approximately $485 annually in gross revenues, which is minor (<1 percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue from swordfish and tunas ($190,986 total revenues). NMFS prefers Alternative 3, because it would implement ICCAT Recommendation 11-08, would likely have minor ecological benefits, would have minor socioeconomic impacts on the pelagic longline fishery, and would facilitate compliance and enforcement. Additionally, Alternative 3 would be unlikely to change fishing practices or effort.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. Copies of the compliance guide are available from NMFS (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel may not possess, retain, transship, land, sell, or store silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks.
(a) * * *
(9) Notwithstanding other provisions in this subsection, possession, retention, transshipment, landing, sale, or storage of silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, and scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead sharks is prohibited on vessels issued a permit under this part that have pelagic longline gear on board or on vessels issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit when tuna, swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel, offloaded from the vessel, or being offloaded from the vessel.
(c) * * *
(6) A dealer issued a permit under this part may not purchase silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel with pelagic longline gear on board. A dealer issued a permit under this part may not purchase silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks from the owner of a fishing vessel issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit when tuna, swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel, offloaded from the vessel, or being offloaded from the vessel.
(d) * * *
(19) Retain, possess, transship, land, store, sell or purchase silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks as specified in § 635.21(c)(1)(ii), § 635.22(a)(2), § 635.24, and § 635.31(c)(6).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
In this final rule, NMFS revises the annual number of incidental interactions allowed between the Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic longline fishery, and leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles. NMFS also makes administrative housekeeping changes to the regulations relating to the fishery. The rule implements the incidental take statement of the current biological opinion on the fishery and clarifies the regulations.
This final rule is effective November 5, 2012.
Copies of supporting documentation that provide background information on this final rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0068, are available at
Adam Bailey, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2248.
The Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic longline fishery targets swordfish primarily on the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS manage the fishery under the
The fishery occasionally and incidentally interacts with (hooks or entangles) protected species, primarily leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles, but also other protected species. Consistent with the terms of a no-jeopardy 2004 NMFS biological opinion (2004 BiOp), the Council recommended and NMFS implemented a broad suite of sea turtle conservation and management measures for the fishery (69 FR 17329, April 2, 2004), including annual interaction limits for leatherback and loggerhead turtles. NMFS currently allows the fishery to interact with up to 16 leatherback and 17 loggerhead sea turtles per year; these limits directly manage the impacts of the fishery on sea turtles. If the shallow-set fishery reaches either limit, NMFS closes the fishery for the remainder of the year.
As required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS re-evaluated in 2012 the impacts of the continued operation of the fishery, as governed under the current suite of management measures (the proposed action), on marine species protected by the ESA (i.e., humpback whales, North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle distinct population segment (DPS), leatherback sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, and green sea turtles). NMFS concluded in a biological opinion dated January 30, 2012 (2012 BiOp), that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these five species, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The 2012 BiOp is an integral component to managing the shallow-set fishery, because the one-year incidental take statement (ITS, including reasonable and prudent management measures, and terms and conditions) forms the basis for regulations that specify the annual limits on leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle interactions with the fishery that are necessary to manage the impacts of the fishery on sea turtles.
In this final rule, NMFS is revising the annual limits on incidental interactions that may occur between the fishery and leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles to 26 and 34 interactions, respectively. If the fishery reaches either of the interaction limits in a given year, NMFS would close the fishery for the remainder of that year.
NMFS is also making minor housekeeping changes to the longline regulations for clarity and consistency in terminology. NMFS is revising references to the “shallow-set component of the longline fishery” to read more simply the “shallow-set longline fishery.” The sections of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations that contain these changes include § 665.802 paragraphs (ss) and (tt), and § 665.813 paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii), and paragraph (i).
On June 11, 2012, NMFS published a proposed rule and request for public comment (77 FR 34334). The comment period for the proposed rule ended on July 11, 2012. NMFS received approximately 2,270 comment submittals on the proposed rule. About 2,180 were form letters associated with a non-governmental organization. Representatives of the longline fishery and non-governmental organizations provided additional comments, along with several private citizens. NMFS responds to comments received, as follows:
The agency must ensure that any activity that it authorizes is not likely, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. To carry out this mandate, NMFS consults with the appropriate agency (either USFWS or NMFS) on any Federal action that it determines may affect ESA-listed marine species. If the agency concludes that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat but, nonetheless, determines that the proposed action will result in the take of listed species, the agency must issue an ITS. The ITS establishes the allowable take of listed species that would otherwise be prohibited, and specifies those reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions that minimize the impact of such take.
In 2004, following a multi-year court-ordered closure, NMFS reopened the fishery under a suite of sea turtle mitigation requirements, including the use of large circle hooks and fish bait, a set certificate program limiting effort at 2,120 annual sets, and compliance with the ITS in a no-jeopardy 2004 BiOp. The 2004 BiOp also required annual limits on the allowable number of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles hooked or entangled in longline fishing gear by the fishery, specified at 16 leatherback and 17 loggerhead sea turtles. If the fishery reached either limit, NMFS would close the fishery for the remainder of the year. The 2004 BiOp also required NMFS to place observers on 100 percent of shallow-set fishing trips.
In 2009, the Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Amendment 18 removed the annual fishing effort limit and associated set certificate program to allow the fishery to achieve optimum yield of swordfish and other species, consistent with National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Optimum yield means the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems. At the time of Amendment 18's approval, domestic and foreign swordfish landings in the North Pacific amounted to about 60 percent of an estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of
In 2008, NMFS concluded in a biological opinion (2008 BiOp) that, among other things, Amendment 18 would not jeopardize the existence of any ESA-listed sea turtles, and included an ITS that allowed up to 16 leatherback and 46 loggerhead sea turtle interactions before NMFS would close the fishery for the remainder of the year. Following litigation over the 2008 BiOp with the Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network, and KAHEA: The Environmental Alliance, the ITS for leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles and that portion of the rule implementing the ITS were remanded to the agency and vacated. Under the terms of a consent decree, NMFS was to complete a new biological opinion on the fishery within 135 days of the USFWS-NMFS final decision on a petition to identify and list nine distinct population segments of loggerhead sea turtles. Consistent with the consent decree, NMFS issued the no-jeopardy 2012 BiOp, which evaluated the continued operation of the fishery under the management measures established by Amendment 18, with fishing effort at up to 5,500 sets annually and incorporated the best available scientific and commercial information. For example, NMFS used sea turtles interaction rates with the fishery obtained from 100 percent observer coverage from 2004-2011. In the 2012 BiOp, NMFS considered the effects of the action within the context of the “Status of Listed Species” together with the `Environmental Baseline' and the “Cumulative Effects” to determine whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. NMFS concluded that the proposed Federal action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the five listed species in the action area, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Accordingly, NMFS issued an ITS that, consistent with the expected level of take at 5,500 sets annually, allows interactions with up to 26 leatherback sea turtles and 34 North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles each year, along with reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize the impact of fishery interactions.
With respect to leatherback sea turtles, the 2012 BiOp concluded that, “the incidental lethal (up to 4 nesting females annually) and non-lethal takes of leatherback sea turtles associated with the proposed action are not reasonably expected to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival of the species.” While acknowledging the adverse effect of any level of take and morality, NMFS found that the expected level of take from the overall action, including a small number of mortalities, is extremely small when considered together with all impacts described in the Status of the Species, Environmental Baseline, and Cumulative Effects sections, including other federally-authorized U.S. fisheries and foreign fisheries. The 2012 BiOp further noted that, even with the expected loss of up to four females annually, “the affected population is expected to increase” and would “remain large enough to retain the potential to contribute to species recovery.” The BiOp noted that the “proposed action does not appreciably impede progress on carrying out any aspect of the recovery program or achieving the overall recovery strategy,” and that NMFS expects the “overall population to continue to grow and to maintain genetic heterogeneity, broad demographic representation, and successfully reproduce.” The biological opinion concluded that the proposed action would not affect the leatherbacks' “ability to meet their lifecycle requirements and to retain the potential for recovery.” Accordingly, the biological opinion concluded that the proposed action was “not reasonably expected to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival or recovery of the species.”
With regard to North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles, NMFS concluded that, although the proposed action would result in the mortality of up to one nesting female annually, “this level of mortality would present negligible additional risk to the North Pacific DPS” and would “not prohibit the DPS from stabilizing or increasing, nor would it prohibit the DPS from reaching a biologically reasonable FENA (females estimated to nest annually) based on the goal of maintaining a stable population in perpetuity.” The biological opinion noted that, although the climate-based population viability assessment (PVA) model reveals a declining population over the next 25 years, “the population will remain large enough to retain the potential for recovery” and that the proposed action “does not appreciably impede progress on carrying out any aspect of the recovery program or achieving the overall recovery strategy.” In particular, NMFS expects that the overall population will remain “large enough to maintain genetic heterogeneity, broad demographic representation, and successful reproduction. The proposed action will have a small effect on the overall size of the population, and we do not expect it to affect the loggerheads' ability to meet their lifecycle requirements and to retain the potential for recovery.”
Accordingly, under this final rule, NMFS will revise the annual limits on incidental interactions with leatherback from 16 to 26 interactions and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles from 17 to 34 interactions. If the fishery reaches either of the interaction limits in a given year, NMFS would close the fishery for the remainder of that year (as required by current regulations). The revised limits are consistent with the 2012 BiOp, and are necessary to manage the impacts of the fishery on sea turtles while affording the fishery the opportunity to achieve optimum yield.
NMFS is allowing the fishery to interact with leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles consistent with the ESA. The sea turtle interaction limits under which the fishery currently operates are the product of a court-approved settlement, based on an eight-year old no-jeopardy biological opinion that analyzed the expected level of take resulting from a fishery capped at 2,120 annual sets. By contrast, the 2012 BiOp is based on the most current information available on sea turtle dynamics and demographics, and is supported by data from 100 percent observer coverage during 2004-2011 on the fishery's interactions, which NMFS used to analyze the effects of the fishery on sea turtle populations. In light of our improved understanding of sea turtle populations and the effectiveness of sea turtle mitigation measures in reducing both the frequency and severity of interactions in the fishery, NMFS appropriately authorized incidental take that exceeds the level (16 leatherbacks and 17 loggerheads) that was supported by judgments made in 2004, when the fishery was being reopened under an experimental regulatory regime that was untested in the Pacific where the fishery operates.
Finally, regarding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS concluded that the action to revise the interaction limits for leatherback (to 26) and North Pacific loggerhead (to 34) sea turtles are within a range of interaction levels analyzed in
As discussed in the 2012 BiOp, the proposed action will not impede progress on carrying out any aspect of the recovery plans or achieving the overall recovery strategies. The proposed action will not affect the majority of the recovery criteria or the highest priority tasks. We expect the overall leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle populations to continue to maintain genetic heterogeneity, broad demographic representation, and successfully reproduce. The proposed action will have a small effect on the overall size of the populations. Therefore, NMFS does not expect the lethal and non-lethal takes of leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both their survival and recovery in the wild.
The only ESA-listed seabird that has the potential to interact with the fishery is the short-tailed albatross. Observers have not recorded any short-tailed albatross interaction with the fishery since NMFS began monitoring the fishery with observers in 1994. On
Based on 100 percent observer coverage from 2004-2011, the 2012 BiOp found that actual interaction rates around Hawaii were lower for leatherbacks and loggerheads, compared to the Atlantic experiments from 2001-2003. Relying on observed sea turtle interaction rates from the Hawaii shallow-set fishery from 2004-2011, the 2012 BiOp multiplied the proposed action of 5,500 sets per year by the average observed interaction rates per set to determine the interaction limits of 26 and 34, for leatherbacks and North Pacific loggerheads, respectively. Using the best available scientific and commercial information, the 2012 BiOp similarly found that the continued operation of the fishery with 5,500 sets annually would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA-listed species in the wild.
In 2006, the fishery reached the interaction limit for loggerhead sea turtles and, in 2011, the fishery reached the limit for leatherback sea turtles. Both times, NMFS closed the fishery for the rest of the calendar year. For more information on annual sea turtle interactions in the shallow-set longline fishery, see the 2012 BiOp and
In 1992, the United Nations banned high seas drift gillnet fishing. Drift gillnets are not allowed in Federal waters around Hawaii or other U.S. Pacific Islands. The USA is a recognized leader in fisheries management worldwide and the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery is among the most strictly regulated and sustainable suppliers of fresh seafood. NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement investigates potential violations of all applicable laws.
The fishery also will not likely affect monk seals. State of Hawaii and Federal laws protect sea turtles and monk seals; longline fishing is not allowed in nearshore waters around Hawaii, from the shoreline to about 25 to 75 nautical miles from shore.
With respect to the American Samoa longline fishery, NMFS considered, under a separate 2010 biological opinion, the impact of the American Samoa longline fishery on sea turtles. Since implementation of gear requirements to protect turtles, NMFS has not documented any additional sea turtle interactions in the American Samoa longline fishery. Although NMFS has taken action to mitigate the impact of the American Samoa longline fishery on sea turtles, we know of no requirement to demonstrate effectiveness of those measures prior to authorizing the continued operation of the Hawaii shallow-set fishery.
The climate-based PVA model, with results that differed from the classical PVA model, was more rigorous in applying data from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and, therefore, more useful to the analysis. According to Van Houtan (2011), the climate-based PVA model captures climate dynamics through two mechanisms: Juvenile recruitment and breeding remigration. This model recognizes that females do not breed annually; rather, breeding occurs when ocean conditions are sufficient for females to reproduce. In addition, juveniles are considered more susceptible to oceanographic variability as they have a limited ability to exploit their surroundings for food. Van Houtan and Halley (2011) concluded that loggerhead nesting varies synchronously within regions, suggesting that climate pressures operating over large geographic areas and time series account for periods of high and low abundance.
Considering the above, however, and given that a small number of sea turtle experts only recently developed the climate-based PVA model and that it uses a relatively short 25-year predictive period, we were cautious not to rely completely on any one model. NMFS chose to proceed carefully with a quantitative and qualitative empirical evaluation of the climate-based PVA model, along with inputs from multiple experts and sources. Based on this approach, we predicted an oscillating decline of the population below a 50-percent quasi-extinction threshold within one generation (25 years) due largely to climate-forcing factors. As noted in the 2012 BiOp, this threshold does not mean that the population will become functionally extinct; rather, it is an assumed fraction of the current population size (in this case, 50 percent) by which the population projections were modeled.
The fishery's impact, though detectable, would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the North Pacific loggerhead's survival and recovery, in that the population would remain large enough to maintain genetic heterogeneity, broad demographic representation, and successful reproduction. In particular, with an adult female nesting population conservatively estimated at 7,100, the effect of the removal of one adult female under the proposed action (0.35 percent of the estimated total population over 25 years) would be insignificant, and that the additional risk to the DPS that would result from loss of one adult female annually is negligible. NMFS has no empirical basis with which to leave the current 16 leatherback and 17 loggerhead sea turtle incidental take levels in place.
The calculation of adult female equivalents was rounded to the nearest significant digit, which conservatively accounts for variation in percentage of adult female equivalents. The difference to the mortality estimate if we included four percent of adults (assuming 96 percent are juveniles) in our calculation would mean an additional 0.13 adult female equivalent, which when added to 0.43 would still round up to 1 adult female mortality annually. Therefore, this single adult female equivalent mortality per year is a precautionary estimate that accounts for variation in the model's underlying assumptions.
NMFS derived the post-interaction mortality rates used in the effects
However, given that the climate-based PVA model was only recently developed by a small number of sea turtle experts, and its relatively short 25-year predictive period, NMFS was cautious not to rely completely on any one model, and elected to proceed carefully with a quantitative and qualitative empirical evaluation of the climate-based PVA model along with inputs from multiple experts and sources, where available. Based on our analysis, NMFS anticipates a rebound of the leatherback population due to decadal oscillations in the North Pacific Ocean and that the number of nesting females will increase over 80 percent by the year 2035. Further, when NMFS analyzed the proposed action with the annual mortality of four adult females, there is a measureable loss to the population, but the population still grows. We determined that the proposed action would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. We expect the overall population to continue to grow and to maintain genetic heterogeneity, broad demographic representation, and successful reproduction. Further, we expect the proposed action to have a small effect on the overall size of the population, and we do not expect it to affect the leatherbacks' ability to meet their lifecycle requirements and to retain the potential for recovery.
Papers referenced by the commenters regarding Eastern Pacific leatherbacks only evaluate land-based climate change effects, such as sand temperature on hatchlings, which is why they could project out to 2100. The climate-based PVA model relies on the strong correlation that exists between sea turtle population trends and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO cannot be predicted beyond what information we now have, and is currently limited to the next 25 years; therefore, the model cannot forecast climate-forcing population trends beyond that period. The correlation between hatchling success and favorable oceanic conditions prior to nesting is poorly understood, and NMFS cannot directly translate effects on the Eastern Pacific leatherback to the Western Pacific leatherback population. Since 1995, none of the genetic samples collected from interactions in the shallow-set fishery is from the Eastern Pacific leatherback population.
NMFS focused the analysis on whether sea turtle populations benefit when U.S. swordfish production displaces the fishing activities of foreign fleets that are known to have higher turtle interaction rates in the same general area. Chan and Pan (2012) projected a global beneficial effect for sea turtles to occur when the fishery fished at the effort level of 5,500 sets with a projected production of 5,461 mt of swordfish, and where there is a one-to-one displacement for the increased swordfish production, which is proportionally deducted from foreign
Because leatherbacks represent about 40.2 percent of the turtles caught in the shallow-set fishery in the action area in the North Pacific, NMFS estimated that, in the Pacific Ocean, there would be 89 (221 × 40.2 percent) fewer leatherback interactions with longline gear from international fisheries at this level of increase in U.S. swordfish production. Similarly, because North Pacific loggerheads represent about 52.8 percent of the turtles caught by the shallow-set fishery, we estimated that there would be 117 (221 × 52.8 percent) fewer loggerhead interactions in longline gear from international fisheries at this level of increase in U.S. swordfish production.
Chan and Pan (2012) discussed in detail the methodology for identifying the one-to-one displacement of U.S. swordfish production to non-U.S. production. NMFS was conservative in applying principles of economic analysis in the 2012 BiOp. For example, based on the fishery's potential effort level of 5,500 sets per year, and the expected one-to-one displacement of foreign swordfish production, the proposed action would result in 20-29 fewer leatherback sea turtle mortalities annually from displaced foreign swordfish production to meet U.S. demand, or an overall decrease in leatherback mortalities of 14-23 individuals annually from foreign longline fisheries in the central and North Pacific. Similarly for loggerheads, after accounting for the direct effects of the proposed action and the indirect spillover effects, the 2012 BiOp concluded that the proposed action would result in 22-47 fewer loggerhead sea turtle mortalities annually or an annual reduction of 15-40 loggerhead mortalities from foreign longline fisheries in the central and North Pacific. However, because the mortality reduction data associated with the spillover effect are not as robust as those analyzed for direct effects, we did not “offset” the direct effects of the proposed action (6 leatherback and 7 loggerhead total mortalities) in our quantitative PVA models, such that the fishery would effectively be credited for mortalities avoided from foreign fisheries. Similarly, the 2012 BiOp reached a no-jeopardy conclusion with and without considering the beneficial effects of spillover, and formulated the ITS only on the expected adverse affects of the proposed action.
With respect to consumer awareness campaigns, NMFS maintains FishWatch (
Further research should be conducted to truly determine the impacts of Hawaii's swordfish regulations on other non-U.S. swordfish fisheries. Until this is done, it would be prudent not to make the case that increased Hawaiian swordfish production actually decreases sea turtle mortality, as there is no robust evidence to support such a claim. If the government wants to increase allowable swordfish catch in Hawaii for economic reasons they should not use the (as of now) specious argument that this will actually improve the conditions for the global turtle population.
Chan and Pan (2012) indicate that U.S. swordfish production displaces non-U.S. production in the central and North Pacific almost one-for-one. The coefficient of the equation (−1.04) implies that, on the margin, an increase of one unit of U.S. production causes a reduction of 1.04 units of non-U.S. production. For further information regarding spillover effects, see the responses to Comments 33 and 34.
At this time, there is insufficient information available on the potential effects of radiation on the North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles to determine what, if any, threat may exist. See the following Web sites for information about mercury in swordfish:
There are no changes to the proposed rule.
The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, determined that this rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the Hawaii-based shallow-set pelagic longline fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Council 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 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. NMFS received no comments or new information regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
NMFS has determined that this action does not represent a substantial change to the action previously analyzed in the 2009 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, Modifications for the Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline Swordfish Fishery (2009 FSEIS)(74 FR 65460, December 10, 2009, corrected at 75 FR 1023, January 8, 2010). NMFS has further determined that there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the implementation of revised incidental interaction limits. A supplement to the 2009 FSEIS is, therefore, not required under NEPA.
This action does not conflict with the provisions implemented to protect migratory birds. On August 24, 2012, the USFWS issued a 3-year Special Purpose Permit that authorizes the shallow-set fishery to take, possess, transport, and import 191 black-footed albatrosses, 430 Laysan albatrosses, 30 northern fulmars, 30 sooty shearwaters, and one short-tailed albatross. If the fishery exceeds any of these take numbers, NMFS and the USFWS would consult, and may take appropriate action. The permit requires NMFS to report all seabird hookings and entanglements to the USFWS each year, and to continue to develop ways to reduce seabird interactions.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Hawaii, Longline, Sea turtles.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR Part 665 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(ss) Engage in shallow-setting from a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit after the shallow-set longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.813(b), in violation of § 665.813(i).
(tt) Fail to immediately retrieve longline fishing gear upon receipt of actual notice that the shallow-set longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.813(b), in violation of § 665.813(i).
(b) * * *
(1) Maximum annual limits are established on the number of physical interactions that occur each calendar year between leatherback and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtles and vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits while shallow-set fishing. The annual limit for leatherback sea turtles (
(2) Upon determination by the Regional Administrator that, based on data from NMFS observers, the fishery has reached either of the two sea turtle interaction limits during a given calendar year:
(i) As soon as practicable, the Regional Administrator will file for publication at the Office of the Federal Register a notification that the fishery reached a sea turtle interaction limit. The notification will include an advisement that the shallow-set longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date until the end of the calendar year in which the sea turtle interaction limit was reached. Coincidental with the filing of the notification, the Regional Administrator will also provide actual notice that the shallow-set longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, to all holders of Hawaii longline limited access permits via telephone, satellite telephone, radio, electronic mail, facsimile transmission, or post.
(ii) Beginning on the fishery closure date indicated by the Regional Administrator in the notification provided to vessel operators and permit holders and published in the
(i) Vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits may not be used to engage in shallow-setting north of the Equator (0° lat.) any time during which the shallow-set longline fishery is closed pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock by vessels using trawl gear in the Winter Herring Savings Area of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2012 herring bycatch allowance specified for the midwater trawl pollock fishery in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 1, 2012, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 1, 2013.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2012 herring bycatch allowance specified for the midwater trawl pollock fishery in the BSAI is 1,600 metric tons as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (77 FR 10669, February 23, 2012).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 2012 herring bycatch allowance specified for the midwater trawl pollock fishery in the BSAI has been caught. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.21(e)(7)(vi), NMFS is closing directed fishing for pollock by vessels using trawl gear in the Winter Herring Savings Areas of the BSAI. The Winter Herring Savings Area of the BSAI is that part of the Bering Sea subarea that is between 58° N latitude and 60° N latitude and between 172° W longitude and 175° W longitude.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146, and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of loss of the end caps on the anti-icing piccolo tube of the wing leading edge. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection of the end caps on the anti-icing piccolo tube for lost or loose end caps, and replacing or repairing the end caps if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct lost and loose end caps on the anti-icing piccolo tube, and ice accretion on the wing leading edge or run-back ice, which could lead to a reduction in the stall margin on approach and loss of controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1175; 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 2012-0003, dated January 6, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An operator reported the loss of the wing leading edge anti-icing piccolo tube end caps on two aircraft. This was discovered during routine zonal inspections when the wing tips were removed. The loss of the end cap would result in a reduction in anti-icing efficiency, over the outboard portion of the leading edge of that wing, affecting approximately 25% of the wingspan towards the wing tip.
The System Safety Analysis (SSA) classifies the loss of anti-icing of both of the outer wings as hazardous if the loss is not indicated to the crew. The loss of a piccolo tube end cap would not be indicated to the flight crew and, therefore, this reduction in anti-icing capability on one wing must also be classified as hazardous.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in ice accretion on the wing leading edge, or run-back ice and could lead to a reduction in the stall margin on approach together with a reduction in roll control authority.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-off [detailed] inspection [for lost and loose end caps] of the piccolo tube end caps. The results of this inspection will be used to establish a suitable repeat inspection period, which will be introduced through the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) process.
The corrective action is replacing or repairing the end caps if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service Bulletin ISB. 30-025, dated April 19, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Although EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0003, dated January 6, 2012, and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB. 30-025, dated April 19, 2011, specify a reporting requirement, this AD does not require reporting. This difference has been coordinated with EASA.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $340, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $140, for a cost of $820 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 19, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and rain protection.
This AD was prompted by a report of loss of the end caps on the anti-icing piccolo tube of the wing leading edge. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct lost and loose end caps on the anti-icing piccolo tube, and ice accretion on the wing leading edge or run-back ice, which could lead to a reduction in the stall margin on approach and loss of 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 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the end caps on the anti-icing piccolo tube for lost and loose end caps, in accordance the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB. 30-025, dated April 19, 2011.
If, during the detailed inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, a lost or loose end cap of the anti-icing piccolo tube is found: Before next flight, replace the end cap, in accordance the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB. 30-025, dated April 19, 2011, or repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0003, dated January 6, 2012, specifies a reporting requirement; this AD does not require reporting.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0003, dated January 6, 2012; and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB. 30-025, dated April 19, 2011; for related information.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires installing spacer assemblies at the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system (CLS) in the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable. Since we issued that AD, we have received reports that the installation has been applied only on one of the lower deck cargo holds, instead of on both forward and aft cargo holds, and that some airplanes could have installed the affected YZ-latches through the instructions of the cargo conversion manual. This proposed AD would require modifying the attachment points of fixed YZ-latches of the CLS lower deck cargo holds on those airplanes on which one or both lower deck cargo holds have not been modified. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment points of the YZ-latches, which could result in unrestrained cargo causing damage to the fire protection system, hydraulic system, electrical wiring, or other equipment located in the forward and aft cargo compartments. This damage could adversely affect the continued safe flight of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1405; 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
On February 22, 2007, we issued AD 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007), we have determined that additional airplanes are affected by the unsafe condition. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0077, dated May 5, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Investigation has revealed that the installed Tie Down Points of YZ latches on the Cargo Loading System (CLS) of Airbus A319, A320 and A321 aeroplanes do not withstand the maximum loads in accordance with the certification requirements (CS 25.787 “Stowage compartments”).
In case of failure of Tie Down Points, unrestrained cargo parts could cause damage in the Forward (FWD) and AFT lower deck
EASA AD 2006-0184 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007)] was issued to require the modification of the attachment points of fixed YZ latches of the CLS in both FWD and AFT lower deck cargo holds, as applicable to aeroplane configuration, in accordance with Airbus SB A320-25-1294 Revision 01.
It has recently been identified that for some aeroplanes, Airbus SB A320-25-1294 Revision 01 has been applied only on one of the lower deck cargo holds (FWD or AFT) while both cargo compartments were concerned by the modification, and that some aeroplanes could have installed the affected YZ [latches] through the instructions of the Cargo Conversion Manual.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA AD 2006-0184, requires modification of the attachment points of fixed YZ latches of the CLS lower deck cargo holds on those aeroplanes on which one or both lower deck cargo holds have not been modified.
This [EASA] AD also prohibits installation of the affected YZ latches, identified by Part Number (P/N) in Table 1 of Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD, on any aeroplane as replacement parts, unless all the attachment points of the YZ latch have been modified.
Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 06, dated July 23, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 740 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007), and retained in this proposed AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $2,049 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $2,389 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 15 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost up to $2,656 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be up to $2,908,940, or $3,931 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007), and adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by November 19, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by results from tests that have shown that the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the cargo loading system (CLS) fail under maximum loads and reports that installation has been applied only on one of the lower deck cargo holds, instead of on both forward and aft cargo holds, and that some airplanes could have installed the affected YZ-latches through the instructions of the cargo conversion manual. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment points of the YZ-latches, which could result in unrestrained cargo
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007). For Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Within 36 months after April 12, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-05-13), install spacer assemblies at the attachment points of the YZ-latches of the CLS in the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 2, dated September 5, 2006. Accomplishing the actions in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes on which one of the following has been incorporated in production: Airbus Modification 20065, 20040, 24495, 24848, 24496, 21895, 21896, 25905, 25907, 22601, 22602, 27187, 28319, 28322, 28330, 28335, or 31797.
(2) Airplanes on which one of the following has been incorporated in service: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1132, A320-25-1133, A320-25-1145, A320-25-1175, A320-25-1177, A320-25-1276, A320-25-1278, A320-28-1134, or A320-28-1141.
Except for Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes on which both Airbus Modifications 32244 and 32245, or both Airbus Modifications 32316 and 32317, have been incorporated in production, and on which no YZ-latch replacements have been made since first flight: Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the attachment points of fixed YZ-latches of the CLS, having a part number (P/N) listed in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, in both forward and aft lower deck cargo holds by adding spacer assemblies having P/N D2557232700000, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 6, dated July 23, 2010. Accomplishing the actions in paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on the CLS of any airplane, a YZ-latch having a part number listed in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, unless it has been modified in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the installation was performed before April 12, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-05-13, Amendment 39-14974 (72 FR 10348, March 8, 2007), using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, dated March 14, 2003; or Revision 1, dated March 27, 2006; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD, using one of the following service information and the additional work is done, in accordance with the applicable instructions referenced as “ADDITIONAL WORK” in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 6, dated July 23, 2010.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, dated March 14, 2003.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2006.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 2, dated September 5, 2006.
(iv) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 3, dated January 22, 2007.
(v) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 4, dated March 13, 2008.
(vi) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 5, dated January 22, 2009.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011-0077, dated May 5, 2011; and the following service information; for related information.
(i)Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 06, dated July 23, 2010.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1294, Revision 02, dated September 5, 2006.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive detailed inspections to detect cracks in the keel beam side panels, and repair if
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1405; 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
On June 16, 2004, we issued AD 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69 FR 38818, June 29, 2004). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69 FR 38818, June 29, 2004), we have determined that the detailed inspection required by AD 2004-13-06 is not sufficient to mitigate the unsafe condition. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0134, dated July 15, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During certification structural fatigue tests, several cases of structural damage (cracks) have been found on keel beam side panels. Cracks were observed on both sides of the keel beam around the rivets below the center wing box between frame (FR) 40 and FR 42, and in part of the area of the upper elliptical cut out forward of FR 41.
This type of damage, if not detected and repaired, would adversely affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 2003-146 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69 FR 38818, June 29, 2004)] to require repetitive detailed inspections of those two areas and corrective actions, depending on findings.
Prompted by reported access difficulties and to allow extension of the interval between two consecutive inspections, Airbus validated an Eddy current Non-Destructive Test (NDT) inspection to replace the detailed inspection.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes DGAC France AD 2003-146, requires repetitive Eddy-current NDT inspections for cracks in the affected areas of the keel beam side panel below the center wing box and corrective actions [repair], depending on findings.
Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Although the MCAI and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010, allow further flight after cracks are found during compliance with the proposed actions, this proposed AD would require repair before further flight if cracks are detected in the keel beam side panels. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracking in the keel beam side panels must be repaired before further flight.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 351 products of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it would take about 29 work-hours per product to comply with the new 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 $865,215, or $2,465 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. 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 removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69 FR 38818, June 29, 2004), and adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by November 19, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69 FR 38818, June 29, 2004).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except those having embodied Airbus modification 30355 in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the side panels of the keel beams. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks on the side panels of the keel beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity 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.
At the applicable compliance time in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD: Do an eddy current non-destructive test (NDT) inspection to detect cracks in the keel beam side panels at Area A and Area B, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles or 26,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Area A is part of the area of the upper elliptical cut-out stringer (STGR) 42 on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) side forward of Frame (FR) 41, and Area B is the area around the rivets on both sides of the keel beam side panel below the center wing box at STGR 42 on the LH and RH side between FR 40 and FR 42.
(1) For airplanes that have been inspected as specified in Airworthiness Limitations Item (ALI) Task 533142-01-1, which was specified in the Airbus A319/A320/A321 ALI document up to Revision 05 inclusive; or as specified in Airbus A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report up to Revision 08 inclusive; or as specified in the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, dated June 19, 2002, or Revision 01, dated April 2, 2004: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Within 4,300 flight cycles or 9,600 flight hours after the last inspection, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 24,200 total flight cycles, or 48,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(1) If any crack is found in Area A during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the affected area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010. Accomplishing a repair terminates the repetitive inspections of Area A required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that side of the keel beam.
(2) If any crack is found in Area B during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair the affected area in accordance with 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).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be repaired (if the operator elects to do so), provided the conditions in paragraph (n)(1), (n)(2), or (n)(3) of this AD are met. Areas A and B are defined in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010.
(1) No multiple cracks in Area A.
(2) If there is a single crack in Area A, the length must be less than 20.0 millimeters (0.79 inch).
(3) No cracking in Area B.
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0134, dated July 15, 2011; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010; for related information.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319-112, -113, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111 and -131 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of two fatigue cracks on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the continuity fittings at the front windshield lower framing on a Model A319 airplane. This proposed AD would require a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the windshield central lower node continuity fittings, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the windshield central lower node continuity fittings, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1405; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0231, dated December 9, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
One operator reported finding two fatigue cracks on continuity fittings at left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides at the front windshield lower framing on an A319 aeroplane on which Airbus modification (mod.) 22058 had been embodied in production. Airbus mod. 22058 (which is included in Airbus mod. 21999) was introduced to improve the fatigue strength of the windshield front framing by increasing the thickness of framing flanges adjacent to the concerned fittings.
Further analyses have demonstrated that the damage tolerance and fatigue requirements of JAR 25.571 (b) are not met on aeroplanes in post-mod. 22058 configuration.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the affected aeroplanes.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1245, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated May 17, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 105 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $178,500, or $1,700 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in 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.
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 19, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-112, -113, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111 and -131 airplanes; certificated in any category; manufacturer serial numbers 0259, 0260, 0264, 0266 through 0270 inclusive, 0275, 0276, 0278, 0287, 0296, 0300, 0303, 0312, 0320, 0321, 0323, 0325, 0328, 0332, 0334, 0335, 0337, 0346, 0352, 0353, 0356, 0365, 0369, 0375, 0377, 0382, 0383, 0396, 0398, 0401, 0412, 0413, 0416, 0419, 0421, 0431, 0432, 0438, 0440, 0441, 0445, 0453, 0458, 0459, 0466, 0468, 0473, 0474, 0482, 0484, 0491, 0493, 0497, 0498, 0501, 0502, 0505, 0507, 0509, 0518, 0520, 0521, 0529, 0531, 0534, 0537, 0538, 0544, 0549, 0554, 0555, 0560, 0563, 0577, 0578, 0585, 0598, 0600, 0608, 0612, 0618, 0621, 0625, 0637, 0660, 0685, 0976, 1010, 1092, 1096, 1103, 1139, 1143, 1158, 1251, 1356, and 1511.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of two fatigue cracks on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the continuity fittings at the front windshield lower framing on a Model A319 airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the windshield central lower node continuity fittings, which could reduce the structural integrity 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.
Before the accumulation of 34,000 total flight cycles since the airplane's first flight, or within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the windshield central lower node continuity fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1245, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated May 17, 2011. If any cracking is found, before next flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, Attn: SDC32 Technical Data and Documentation Services, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 28 06; email
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0231, dated December 9, 2011; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1245, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated May 17, 2011; for related information.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Kasigluk Airport, Kasigluk, AK, to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2012.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0322; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0952 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-6) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0952 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-6”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kasigluk Airport, Kasigluk, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Kasigluk Airport, and would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Kasigluk Airport, Kasigluk, AK.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9 W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 201 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.0-mile radius of Kasigluk Airport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's request to revise the South Bend-Elkhart, Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality State Implementation Plan (SIP) by replacing the previously approved motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010a emissions model. Indiana submitted this request to EPA for parallel processing with a letter dated June 15, 2012, and followed up with a final submittal after the state public comment period ended on July 18, 2012.
Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0536, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Patricia Morris, Environmental Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period.
EPA is proposing to approve new MOVES2010a-based budgets for the South Bend-Elkhart, Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area. The South Bend-Elkhart, Indiana area was redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39577), and the MOBILE6.2-based budgets were approved in that action. If EPA finalizes this proposed approval, the newly submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets will replace the existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets in the state's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and must then be used in future transportation conformity analyses for the area. At that time, the previously approved MOBILE6.2-based budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes.
If EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the South Bend-Elkhart 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area must use the MOVES2010a-based budgets starting on the effective date of the final approval. See the official release of the MOVES2010 Emissions Model (75 FR 9411) for background and section III(c) below for details.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars, trucks, and other on-road vehicles. These motor vehicle SIP budgets are the portions of the total emissions that are allocated to on-road vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance, if they are not exceeded. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. For more information about budgets, see the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
Under CAA section 176(c), transportation plans, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations can be found at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
In general, before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, EPA must affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, budgets that are replacing approved budgets must be found adequate and approved before the budgets can replace the older budgets. Therefore, EPA cannot just find these replacement budgets adequate because adequate budgets do not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same purpose, as is the case with Indiana's MOVES2010a 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan budgets, EPA must approve the revised SIP and budgets, and must affirm that they are adequate at the same time. Once EPA approves the budgets in the SIP, the revised budgets must be used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA had previously approved budgets for the South Bend-Elkhart, 8-hour ozone maintenance area for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
The MOVES model is EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating highway emissions. The model is based on analyses of millions of emission test results and considerable advances in the agency's understanding of vehicle emissions. MOVES incorporates the latest emissions data, more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased user flexibility, new software design, and significant new capabilities relative to those reflected in MOBILE6.2.
EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of these minor revisions enhance model performance and do not significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from MOVES2010.
MOVES will be required for new regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations (“regional conformity analyses”) outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013, or when EPA approves MOVES-based budgets, whichever comes first.
EPA encouraged areas to examine how MOVES would affect future transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations so, if necessary, SIPs and budgets could be revised with MOVES or transportation plans and TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) prior to the end of the regional transportation conformity grace period. EPA also encouraged state and local air agencies to consider how the release of MOVES would affect analyses supporting SIP submissions under development (77 FR 9411 and 77 FR 11394).
The Michiana Council of Governments (MACOG), which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the South Bend-Elkhart area, has used MOVES2010a emission rates with the transportation network information to estimate emissions in the years of the transportation plan and also for the SIP. Indiana is revising the budgets at this time using the latest planning assumptions including population and employment updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data has been used to update the age distribution of the vehicle fleet. Since MOVES2010 (or a minor model revision) will be required for conformity analyses after the grace period ends, Indiana has concluded that updating the budgets with MOVES2010a will prepare the areas for the transition to using MOVES for conformity analyses and determinations. The interagency consultation group has had extensive consultation on the requirements and need for new budgets.
On June 15, 2012, Indiana submitted to EPA, for parallel processing, replacement budgets based on MOVES2010a for the South Bend-Elkhart area. Indiana provided public review and comment which ended on July 18, 2012. There were no comments. Indiana submitted the final SIP revision request on August 17, 2012.
The MOVES2010a budgets are proposed to replace the prior approved MOBILE6.2 budgets and are for the same years and pollutants/precursors. The new MOVES2010a budgets are for the year 2020 for both VOCs and NO
The submittal demonstrates how all emissions decline from the attainment year of 2004. In 2004, the total estimated NO
No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997 ozone standard in the South Bend-Elkhart area. An appropriate safety margin for NO
EPA has always required that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (i.e., RFP, attainment, or maintenance). States that revise their existing SIPs to include MOVES budgets must therefore show that the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor vehicle emissions contained in the budgets. The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110.
In addition, the transportation conformity rule (at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that “the budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for RFP, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan submission).” This and the other adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find submitted budgets adequate or approve them for conformity purposes.
In addition, EPA has stated that areas can revise their budgets and inventories using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For example, the first criterion could be satisfied by demonstrating that the emissions reductions between the baseline/attainment year and maintenance year are the same or greater using MOVES than they were previously. The Indiana submittal meets this requirement, as described below in section V.
For more information, see EPA's latest “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes” (April 2012).
The Indiana SIP revision request for South Bend-Elkhart 1997 ozone maintenance seeks to revise only the on-road mobile source inventories and not the non-road inventories, area source inventories, or point source inventories for the 2020 year for which the SIP revises the budgets. IDEM has certified that the control strategies remain the same as in the original SIP, and that no other control strategies are necessary. Attainment of the ozone standard with current control strategies is confirmed by the monitoring data for South Bend-Elkhart, IN, which continues to monitor attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The area is also monitoring attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Thus, the current control strategies are continuing to keep the area in attainment of the NAAQS.
EPA has reviewed the emission estimates for point, area, and non-road sources and concluded that no major changes to the projections need to be made, as discussed further below. Indiana finds that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, non-road, and point) have not changed significantly from the original submittal for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020. As a result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions of the plan.
Indiana confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because the emissions are continuing to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources) are 91.48 tpd for NO
Indiana has submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets for the South Bend-Elkhart area that are clearly identified in Table 5.2-A of the submittal. The on-road budgets for 2020 are 13.95 tpd for NO
EPA is proposing to approve the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by the state for use in determining transportation conformity in the South Bend-Elkhart 1997 ozone maintenance area. EPA is making this proposal based on our evaluation of these budgets using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation
The adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) are as follows:
• The submitted SIP was endorsed by [the Governor/Governor's designee] and was subject to a state public hearing (§ 93.118(e)(4)(i));
• Before the control strategy implementation plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among Federal, state, and local agencies occurred, and the state fully documented the submittal (§ 93.118(e)(4)(ii));
• The budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified (§ 93.118(e)(4)(iii));
• The budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP, attainment, or maintenance (§ 93.118(e)(4)(iv));
• The budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and control measures in the control strategy implementation plan (§ 93.118(e)(4)(v); and
• The revisions explain and document changes to the previous budgets, impacts on point and area source emissions and changes to established safety margins and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or vehicle miles traveled) (§ 93.118(e)(4)(vi).
Our review finds that Indiana has met all of the adequacy criteria. The final submittal is dated August 17, 2012, and signed by the governor's designee. All public hearing materials were submitted with the formal SIP revision request. The interagency consultation group, which is comprised of the state air agency, state Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, EPA, and the MPOs for the area, have discussed and reviewed the budgets developed with MOVES2010a and the safety margin allocation. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified in the submittal in table 5.2-A. The budgets when considered with other emissions sources (point, area, non-road) are consistent with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard. The budgets are clearly related to the emissions inventory and control measures in the SIP. The changes from the previous budgets are clearly explained with the change in the model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated planning assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the Appendix to the submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling and participated in the consultation process. The Federal Highway Administration—Indiana Division and the Indiana Department of Transportation have taken a lead role in working with the MPO and contractor to provide accurate, timely information and inputs to the MOVES2010a model runs. The MACOG network model provided the vehicle miles of travel and other necessary data from the travel demand network model.
The CAA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (in this case, maintenance). Therefore, states that revise existing SIPs with MOVES must show that the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor vehicle emissions calculated by the new model.
To that end, Indiana's submitted MOVES2010a budgets meet EPA's two criteria for revising budgets without revising the entire SIP:
(1) The SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and
(2) The state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
The State has documented that growth and control strategy assumptions continue to be valid and do not change the overall conclusions of the maintenance plan. The emission estimates for point, area and non-road sources have not changed. Indiana finds that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, non-road, and point) from the original submittal for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020 were developed before the downturn in the economy over the last several years. Because of this, the factors included in the original submittal may project more growth than actual into the future. As a result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions of the plan.
Indiana confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because the emissions are continuing to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions for mobile sources) decrease from the 2004 attainment year to the year 2020 (the last year of the maintenance plan). These totals demonstrate that emissions in the South Bend-Elkhart area are continuing to decline and remain below the attainment levels. The table below shows total emissions in the South Bend-Elkhart area including point, area, non-road, and mobile sources and demonstrates the declining emissions from the 2004 attainment year.
The following table displays the submitted budgets that are proposed in the notice to be approved. The budgets include an appropriate margin of safety while still maintaining total emissions below the attainment level.
Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA has determined that the SIP will continue to meet its requirements if the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a inventories.
Pursuant to the State's request, EPA is proposing that, if we finalize the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes upon the effective date of that final approval.
In addition, once EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the regional transportation conformity grace period for using MOBILE6 instead of MOVES2010 (and subsequent minor revisions) for the pollutants included in these budgets will end for the South Bend-Elkhart ozone maintenance area on the effective date of that final approval.
EPA is proposing in this action that the South Bend-Elkhart, Indiana existing approved budgets for VOCs and NO
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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of reply comment date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), via the Office of Managing Director, seeks comment on a report released by the Government Accountability Office Report on September 12, 2012, entitled,
The comment period is reopened and the reply comment period is extended for the proposed rule published August 17, 2012, at 7 FR 49749. Interested parties may submit comments in response to the
You may submit comments, identified by MD Docket No. 12-201, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.
On July 17, 2012, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 12-77, seeking comment on proposals to reform the Commission's policies and procedures for assessing and collecting regulatory fees. The Commission published this
In this Public Notice, the Office of Managing Director (OMD) seeks comment on the
The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site,
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to update policy, procedures, and contract clauses. The proposed rule provides updates to outdated information currently in the
Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0196, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4522; email address:
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• 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.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
In 2011 the EPA reviewed EPAAR clause 1552.208-70,
This proposed rule amends the EPAAR to revise the following within the
1. Paragraph (d)(2)—changed from “the contracting officer must obtain a waiver from the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Printing” to “Only the Joint Committee on Printing has the authority to grant waivers to the printing requirements. All Agency waiver requests must be coordinated with EPA's Headquarters Printing Management Team, Facilities and Services Division, and with the Office of General Counsel.”
2. Paragraph (d)(3)—changed from “the contracting officer must obtain a waiver from the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Printing” to “Only the Joint Committee on Printing has the authority to grant waivers to the printing requirements. All Agency waiver requests must be coordinated with EPA's Headquarters Printing Management Team, Facilities and Services Division, and with the Office of General Counsel.”
3. Paragraph (d)(4)—changed from “the contracting officer must obtain a waiver from the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Printing” to “Only the Joint Committee on Printing has the
4. Paragraph (d)(4)—duplication limit changed from 100 to 500.
5. Paragraph (d)(4)—examples of non-paper duplication expanded from “CDs/DVDs” to “electronic information storage device.”
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore, not subject to review under the EO.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or recordkeeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, 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 the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution of Use” (66 FR 28335, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in it's regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This proposed rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental affects.
Environmental Protection, Required Sources of Supply, Printing.
Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
2. Revise 1552.208-70 to read as follows:
As prescribed in 1508.870, insert the following clause:
(a) Definitions. “Printing” is the process of composition, plate making, presswork, binding and microform; or the end items produced by such processes and equipment. Printing services include newsletter production and periodicals which are prohibited under EPA contracts.
“Composition” applies to the setting of type by hot-metal casting, photo typesetting, or electronic character generating devices for the purpose of producing camera copy, negatives, a plate or image to be used in the production of printing or microform.
“Camera copy” (or “camera-ready copy”) is a final document suitable for printing/duplication.
“Desktop Publishing” is a method of composition using computers with the final output or generation of a camera copy done by a color inkjet or color laser printer. This is not considered “printing.” However, if the output from desktop publishing is being sent to a typesetting device (i.e., Linotronic) with camera copy being produced in either paper or negative format, these services are considered “printing.”
“Microform” is any product produced in a miniaturized image format, for mass or general distribution and as a substitute for conventionally printed material. Microform services are classified as printing services and include microfiche and microfilm. The contractor may make up to two sets of microform files for archival purposes at the end of the contract period of performance.
“Duplication” means the making of copies on photocopy machines employing electrostatic, thermal, or other processes without using an intermediary such as a negative or plate.
“Requirement” means an individual photocopying task. (There may be multiple requirements under a Work Assignment or Delivery Order. Each requirement would be subject to the duplication limitation of 5,000 copies of one page or 25,000 copies of multiple pages in the aggregate per requirement).
“Incidental” means a draft and/or proofed document (not a final document) that is not prohibited from printing under EPA contracts.
(b) Prohibition. (1) The contractor shall not engage in, nor subcontract for, any printing in connection with the performance of work under this contract. Duplication of more than 5,000 copies of one page or more than 25,000 copies of multiple pages in the aggregate per requirement constitutes printing. The intent of the printing limitation is to eliminate duplication of final documents.
(2) In compliance with EPA Order 2200.4a, EPA Publication Review Procedure, the Office of Communications, Education, and Media Relations is responsible for the review of materials generated under a contract published or issued by the Agency under a contract intended for release to the public.
(c) Affirmative Requirements. (1) Unless otherwise directed by the contracting officer, the contractor shall use double-sided copying to produce any progress report, draft report or final report.
(2) Unless otherwise directed by the contracting officer, the contractor shall use recycled paper for reports delivered to the Agency which meet the minimum content standards for paper and paper products as set forth in EPA's Web site for the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines at:
(d) Permitted Contractor Activities. (1) The prohibitions contained in paragraph (b) do not preclude writing, editing, or preparing manuscript copy, or preparing related illustrative material to a final document (camera-ready copy) using desktop publishing.
(2) The contractor may perform a requirement involving the duplication of less than 5,000 copies of only one page, or less than 25,000 copies of multiple pages in the aggregate, using one color (black), such pages shall not exceed the maximum image size of 10
(3) The contractor may perform a requirement involving the multi-color duplication of no more than 100 pages in the aggregate using color copier technology, such pages shall not exceed the maximum image size of 10
(4) The contractor may perform the duplication of no more than a total of 500 units of an electronic information storage device (e.g., CD-ROMs, DVDs, thumb drives*) (including labeling and packaging) per work assignment or task order/delivery order per contract year. Duplication services below these thresholds are not considered printing. If performance of the contract will require duplication in excess of these thresholds, contractors must immediately notify the contracting officer in writing and a waiver must be obtained. Only the Joint Committee on Printing has the authority to grant waivers to the printing requirements. All Agency waiver requests must be coordinated with EPA's Headquarters Printing Management Team, Facilities and Services Division, and with the Office of General Counsel.
(e) Violations. The contractor may not engage in, nor subcontract for, any printing in connection with the performance of work under the contract. The cost of any printing services in violation of this clause will be disallowed, or not accepted by the Government.
(f) Flowdown Clause. The contractor shall include in each subcontract which may involve a requirement for any printing/duplicating/copying a provision substantially the same as this clause.
* Pursuant to the July 2008 guidance
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the List Sampling Frame Surveys. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. Annually, NASS obtains lists of farm and ranch operators from different crop and livestock organizations. Historically we have averaged 500,000 potential new operators each year from these lists. Before adding these names to our list of active operators we will contact the operators to collect basic farming information from them on the size and type of operation. These data will be used to eliminate any duplication we may have with names already on our list. Since the 2012 Census of Agriculture will be conducted in 2013, the sample sizes for 2014 and 2015 will be greatly reduced. Additional questions may need to be added to the questionnaire during the next three years to accommodate any new trends or changes in the farming community that need to be identified (i.e. Organic farming, renewable energy production, expansion of acreage of alternative or specialty crops, etc.).
Comments on this notice must be received by December 3, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0140, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333.
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 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) authorizes the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) to prepare and amend fishery management plans for any fishery in waters under its jurisdiction. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the reef fish fishery in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico under the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The vessel monitoring system (VMS) regulations for the Gulf reef fish fishery may be found at 50 CFR 622.9.
The FMP contains several area-specific regulations where fishing is restricted or prohibited in order to protect habitat or spawning aggregations, or to reduce fishing pressure in areas that are heavily fished. Unlike size, bag, and trip limits, where the catch can be monitored onshore when a vessel returns to port, area restrictions require at-sea enforcement. However, at-sea enforcement of offshore area restrictions is difficult due to the distance from shore and the limited number of patrol vessels, resulting in a need to improve enforceability of area fishing restrictions through remote sensing methods. In addition, all fishing gears are subject to some area fishing restrictions. Because of the sizes of these areas and the distances from shore, the effectiveness of enforcement through over flights and at-sea interception is limited. An electronic VMS allows a more effective means to monitor vessels for intrusions into restricted areas.
The VMS provides effort data and significantly aids in enforcement of areas closed to fishing. All position reports are treated in accordance with NMFS existing guidelines for confidential data. As a condition of authorized fishing for or possession of Reef Fish in or from the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a vessel owner or operator subject to the requirements for a VMS in this section must allow NMFS, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and their authorized officers and designees, access to the vessel's position data obtained from the VMS.
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
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application for manufacturing authority under zone procedures within FTZ 99 on behalf of Fisker Automotive, Inc. (Fisker), as described in the application and
Fisker must admit all foreign man-made fiber and cotton bags (HTSUS Subheadings 4202.12.8030, 4202.12.8070, 4202.92.4500, 4202.92.9060, 4202.99.9000, 6305.20), labels and cords (6307.90), and felt (5602.90) to the zone under privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) or domestic (duty-paid) status (19 CFR 146.43).
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that drawn stainless steel sinks (“drawn sinks”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. The final determination will be issued 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Frances Veith or Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4295 or (202) 482-6231, respectively.
The products covered by the scope of this investigation are drawn stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the scope of these investigations if they are included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks.
Excluded from the scope of the investigations are stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have seamless corners, but rather are made by notching and bending the stainless steel, and then welding and finishing the vertical corners to form the bowls. Stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes be referred to as “zero radius” or “near zero radius” sinks.
The products covered by these investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.00.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
The Department has conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (“NV”) has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c). Specifically, the Department preliminarily selected Thailand as the surrogate country, which is economically comparable to the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Thus, we calculated NV using Thai prices, when available, to value the respondents' factors of production (“FOPs”).
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Determination for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China,” (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”) from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant
The preliminary weighted-average antidumping duty (“AD”) margin percentages are as follows:
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
For the final determination in this investigation interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 40 days after the publication of this preliminary determination.
Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of drawn sinks from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through,
We have adjusted the preliminary determination AD margins for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through as follows:
(1) For Superte and Dongyuan, mandatory respondents each receiving their own calculated AD margin, we reduced their respective cash deposit rates by the respective export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through determined for each of these respondents in the companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) proceeding.
(2) For exporter/producer combinations receiving a separate AD margin based on the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents in the AD determination, we reduced the AD cash deposit rate by the lesser of a) the export subsidy rate applicable to each exporter or b) the average of the export subsidy rates applicable to the mandatory respondents on which the separate rate in the AD determination is based.
(3) For the PRC-wide entity, which received an adverse facts available rate based on information contained in the Petition, as an extension of the adverse inference found necessary pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has adjusted the PRC-wide entity's AD cash deposit rate by the lowest export subsidy rate and the lowest estimated domestic subsidy pass-through determined for any party in the companion CVD proceeding.
These cash deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of drawn sinks, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 45 days of our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received a
Alexander Montoro, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0238.
The antidumping duty order on fish from Vietnam was published on August 12, 2003.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), the requesting company certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”).
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), the requesting company submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on the documentation provided by Golden Quality, we find that the request submitted by Golden Quality meets the threshold requirements for initiation of the NSR for shipments of fish from Vietnam.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the requesting company in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Golden Quality certified that it both produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for the new shipper review request, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for subject merchandise which Golden Quality both produced and exported.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 3, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Erica Kuligowski,
This is a reinstatement with change of a previously approved information collection. The questionnaire approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in August 2011 has been revised in order to be a more effective tool for gathering information on the use of elevators during building evacuations. Some questions and possible answers to those questions have been revised or modified to ensure privacy of possible respondents.
NIST's research on elevators has primarily focused on the technical aspects of ensuring safe and reliable evacuation for the occupants of tall buildings. In addition, the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association provide requirements for the use of elevators for both occupant evacuation and fire fighter access into the building. However, there still is little understanding of how occupants use elevator systems during fire emergencies.
The main focus of this research effort is to gain an understanding of how elevators are currently used by occupants of existing multi-story buildings in the United States during fire emergencies. This research aims to summarize emergency plans and procedures from buildings that make use of one or multiple elevators from the existing elevator system (used for normal building traffic) for the evacuation of building occupants during fire emergencies. Building managers and designated safety personnel from existing buildings in the United States, including federal buildings, will be contacted to fill out a questionnaire asking about how the buildings' evacuation plans incorporate the use of the existing elevator system to evacuate occupants during fire emergencies, specifically individuals with disabilities, if at all.
This data will be collected electronically. Questionnaires will be made available on a secured Web site and the link to this Web site will be distributed by NIST staff to building property managers and designated safety personnel.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 3, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230 (or via Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mi Ae Kim at (301) 427-8365 or
The 1982 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Convention) established the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR meets annually to adopt measures to conserve and manage the marine living resources of the Convention Area. The United States is a Contracting Party to the Convention and a member of CCAMLR and its Scientific Committee. The Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act (AMLRCA) directs and authorizes the United States to take actions necessary to meet its treaty obligations as a Contracting Party to the Convention. The regulations
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR part 300 form the basis for this collection of information. The reporting requirements included in this collection concern CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP) activities, United States (U.S.) harvesting permit applicants and/or harvesting vessel operators, and U.S. importers and re-exporters of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR).
Paper applications, electronic reports, satellite-linked vessel monitoring devices, radio and telephone calls, gear and vessel markings are required from participants and methods of transmittal include Internet, satellite, facsimile and mail transmission of forms, reports and information.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the continuing collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the continuing collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the training and testing activities conducted in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) study area from January 2014 through January 2019. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than November 5, 2012.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
A copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by visiting the internet at:
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has
With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].”
On April 13, 2012, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting two letters of authorization (LOAs) for the take of 39 species of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities to be conducted in the HSTT Study Area over 5 years. The Navy is requesting a 5-year LOA for training activities and a 5-year LOA for testing activities, each proposed to be conducted from 2014 through 2019. The Study Area includes three existing range complexes: the Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex, Hawaii Range Complex (HRC), and Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) (see page 2 of the Navy's application for a map). In addition, the Study Area includes Navy pierside locations and areas on the high seas where maintenance, training, or testing may occur. These activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these activities may expose some of the marine mammals present within the Study Area to sound from active sonar, underwater detonations, and pile driving and removal. In addition, incidental takes of marine mammals may occur from ship strikes. The Navy is requesting authorization to take 39 marine mammal species by Level B harassment and 30 marine mammal species by serious injury or mortality.
In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting the following training and testing activities: amphibious warfare; anti-surface warfare; anti-submarine warfare; mine warfare; naval special warfare; Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) testing; Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) testing; Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) testing; and Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) testing. Detailed descriptions of these activities, including duration, location, and equipment involved, are provided in the Navy's application. The Navy has also prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analyzing the effects on the human environment of implementing their preferred alternative (among others).
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the training and testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) study area from January 2014 through January 2019. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS announces our receipt of the Navy's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and invites information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than November 5, 2012.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
An electronic copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Brian D. Hopper, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].”
On April 13, 2012, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting two letters of authorization (LOAs) for the take of 40 species of marine mammals incidental to Navy training and testing activities to be conducted in the AFTT Study Area over 5 years. The Navy requests a 5-year LOA for training activities and a 5-year LOA for testing activities, each proposed to be conducted from 2014 through 2019. The Study Area includes the following range complexes: the Northeast Range Complexes (consisting of the Boston, Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City Ranges Complexes); the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range; the Virginia Capes Range Complex (VACAPES); the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex (CHPT); the Jacksonville Range Complex (JAX), the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; the Undersea Warfare Training Range; the Key West Range Complex; the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; and the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex (GOMEX) (see Figure 1-1 in the Navy's LOA application for a map of the AFTT Study Area). In addition, the Study Area includes Navy pierside locations and areas on the high seas where maintenance, training, or testing may occur. These activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these activities may expose some of the marine mammals present within the Study Area to sound from active sonar, underwater detonations, and pile driving and removal. In addition, incidental takes of marine mammals may occur from ship strikes.
In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting training and testing operations that involve the use of active acoustics and underwater detonations. These non-impulsive (sonar) and impulsive (explosives) sources would be used during the following training and testing activities: amphibious warfare; anti-surface warfare; anti-submarine warfare; mine warfare; naval special warfare; Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) testing; Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) testing; Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) testing; and Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) testing. Detailed descriptions of these activities are included in the LOA application.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of inquiry.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issues this Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on behalf of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to seek public comment on the conceptual network architecture presentation made at the FirstNet Board of Directors' meeting held on September 25, 2012, as well as to invite input on other network design and business plan considerations. NTIA also seeks comment on the general concept of how to develop applications for public safety users as discussed at the FirstNet Board meeting. FirstNet intends to use the input received from this process to shape its efforts to establish the interoperable public safety broadband network based on a single, nationwide network architecture called for under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act).
Comments must be received no later than November 1, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Written comments may be submitted by email to
Uzoma Onyeije, Senior Advisor for Public Safety, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 7324, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0016; email:
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and authorized it to take all actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide public safety broadband network (PSBN) based on a single, national network architecture.
FirstNet is headed by a Board of Directors (Board) with 15 voting members.
FirstNet Board Chairman Sam Ginn also discussed a general concept for developing applications designed specifically for public safety users. Under this general concept, FirstNet would seek to understand what applications federal, state, local, and tribal public safety users would like to see developed. FirstNet would define interface and certification requirements for FirstNet applications, and would call on innovators to develop applications for public safety to use to do its job better and more safely. The public safety community could download these applications, thus enabling public safety users nationwide to benefit from individual innovations.
These conceptual presentations mark a starting point for further discussions.
On behalf of the FirstNet Board, NTIA requests public comments on the FNN conceptual network design model presented at the FirstNet Board meeting. NTIA also solicits input from interested stakeholders on other options that the FirstNet Board should consider in meeting the Act's requirements to deploy the PSBN based on a single, nationwide network architecture that evolves with technological advancements. FirstNet is particularly interested in receiving innovative ideas on how it can deploy a reliable, ubiquitous, redundant, and interoperable broadband network for public safety users. NTIA invites the submission of proposals that address the following criteria:
1. Meets public safety's requirements for priority, quality of service, and preemption features;
2. Uses, to the extent possible, existing radio access network and core network infrastructure installed by commercial mobile operators in order to maximize the coverage and performance delivered to public safety while minimizing the capital expenditures;
3. Reaches operational capability as quickly as possible; and
4. Enables voice services (cellular telephony and push-to-talk (PTT)) both within the FirstNet network as well as to/from other commercial networks, including the public switched telephone network (PSTN).
Any proposal submitted in response to this NOI should: (1) Describe all of the assumptions necessary for the proposal to succeed; (2) identify the specific opportunities or benefits the proposal provides in meeting the Act's objectives and the criteria enumerated above; (3) discuss any existing challenges or obstacles that must be overcome to realize the proposal; and (4) specify any areas in need of further research and development to ensure the success of the proposal.
NTIA also seeks input from all stakeholders on the FirstNet Board's conceptual discussion of a potential framework for developing applications for public safety use. Commenters should: (1) Provide suggestions for applications that would benefit public safety users; (2) address what interface requirements and other information innovators need in order to develop applications in an open environment; (3) address what specific security requirements public safety needs in its applications; (4) provide ideas as to what framework or organizational factors would allow for the development of the greatest number of quality applications; (5) provide specific suggestions for FirstNet's applications certification requirements; (6) discuss possible delivery methods (
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of citizens band base station antennas. The collection of information is in regulations setting forth the Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas (16 CFR part 1204). These regulations establish testing and recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers and importers of antennas subject to the standard. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice, before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than December 3, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-0003, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
In 1982, the Commission issued the Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Antennas (16 CFR part 1204) to reduce risks of death and serious injury that may result if an omnidirectional antenna contacts an overhead power line while being erected or removed from its site. The standard contains performance tests to demonstrate that an antenna will not transmit a harmful electric current if it contacts an electric power line with a voltage of 14,500 volts phase-to-ground. Certification regulations implementing the standard require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of antennas subject to the standard to perform tests to demonstrate that those products meet the requirements of the standard and to maintain records of those tests. The certification regulations are codified at 16 CFR part 1204, Subpart B.
The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of antennas subject to the standard to help protect the public from risks of injury or death associated with omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas. More specifically, this information helps the Commission determine that antennas subject to the standard comply with all applicable requirements. The Commission also uses this information to obtain corrective actions if omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas fail to comply with the standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.
OMB approved the collection of information in the certification regulations under control number 3041-0006. OMB's most recent extension of approval expires on December 12, 2012. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval without change for the collection of information in the certification regulations.
Commission staff estimates that about five firms manufacture or import citizens band base station antennas subject to the standard. Commission staff estimates that the certification regulations will impose an average annual burden of about 220 hours on each of those firms. That burden will result from conducting the testing required by the regulations and maintaining records of the results of that testing. The total annual burden imposed by the regulations on manufacturers and importers of citizens band base station antennas is approximately 1,100 hours.
The hourly wage for the testing and recordkeeping required to conduct the testing and maintain records required by the regulations is approximately $61.75 (Bureau of Labor Statistics: total compensation for management, professional, and related workers in goods-producing private industries:
Commission staff will expend approximately 40 hours reviewing records required to be maintained for omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas. The annual cost to the federal government of the collection of information in these regulations is estimated to be $3,309. This estimate uses an annual total compensation of $119,238 (the equivalent of a GS-14 step 5 employee, with an additional 30.7 percent added for benefits.)
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed request for an extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of walk-behind power lawn mowers. This collection of information consists of testing and recordkeeping requirements in certification regulations implementing the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 CFR part 1205). The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice, before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than December 3, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-0005, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
In 1979, the Commission issued the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 CFR Part 1205) under provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2051
Subpart B of the standard sets forth regulations prescribing requirements for a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with the standard for walk-behind power mowers. These regulations also require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of walk-behind power mowers to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing to support certification of compliance. 16 CFR Part 1205, Subpart B. Section 14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of a consumer product subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate stating that the product complies with all applicable consumer product safety standards. Section 14(a) of the CPSA also requires that the certificate of compliance must be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program.
Section 14(b) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue regulations to prescribe a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with a consumer product safety standard. Section 16(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C 2065(b)) authorizes the Commission to issue rules to require that firms “establish and maintain” records to permit the Commission to determine compliance with rules issued under the authority of the CPSA.
The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers and importers of walk-behind power mowers to protect consumers from risks of injuries associated with walk-behind power lawn mowers. More specifically, the Commission uses this information to determine whether the mowers produced and imported comply with the applicable standard. The Commission also uses this information to obtain corrective actions if walk-behind power mowers fail to comply with the standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.
The OMB approved the collection of information requirements for walk-behind mowers under control number 3041-0091. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on December 31, 2012. The Commission proposes to request an extension of approval for this collection of information requirements.
Commission staff estimates that about 34 firms are subject to the testing and recordkeeping requirements of the certification regulations. Commission staff estimates further that the annual testing and recordkeeping burden imposed by the regulations on each of these firms on average is approximately 390 hours. Thus, the total annual burden imposed by the certification regulations on all manufacturers and importers of walk-behind power mowers is about 13,260 hours (34 firms × 390 hours).
In addition, manufacturers are expected to spend an additional hour, per production day, to collect the information for labeling. Accordingly, an additional 130 hours per firm is added to the total burden. For the 34 firms involved, the total estimated burden related to labeling is 4,420 hours. Aggregate annual burden hours related to testing, recordkeeping, and labeling are estimated to be 520 hours
CPSC staff estimates that the hourly wage for the time required to perform the required testing and recordkeeping is approximately $61.75 (Bureau of Labor Statistics: total compensation for management, professional, and related workers in goods-producing private industries:
The annual cost to the federal government of the collection of information in these regulations is estimated to be $6,618 for one-half of one CPSC staff month to review records required to be maintained. This estimate uses an annual total compensation of $119,238 (the equivalent of a GS-14 step 5 employee with an additional 30.7 percent added for benefits.)
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval, for a period of 3 years from the date of approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear. This collection of information is in the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 through 6X and the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 through 14 and regulations implementing those standards. See 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616. The children's sleepwear standards and implementing regulations establish requirements for testing and recordkeeping by manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear.
The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice, before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from OMB.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than December 3, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-0002, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
Children's sleepwear in sizes 0 through 6X, manufactured for sale in or imported into the United States, is subject to the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 through 6X (16 CFR Part 1615). Children's sleepwear in sizes 7 through 14 is subject to the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 through 14 (16 CFR part 1616). The children's sleepwear flammability standards require that fabrics, seams, and trim used in children's sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14 must self-extinguish when exposed to a small open-flame ignition source. The children's sleepwear standards and implementing regulations also require manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14 to perform testing of products and to maintain records of the results of that testing. 16 CFR part 1615, subpart B; 16 CFR part 1616; subpart B. The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear to help protect the public from risks of death or burn injuries associated with children's sleepwear. More specifically, the Commission reviews this information to determine whether the products
OMB approved the collection of information in the children's sleepwear standards and implementing regulations under control number 3041-0027. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on December 12, 2012. The Commission proposes to request an extension of approval for the collection of information in the children's sleepwear standards and implementing regulations.
Commission staff estimates that about 83 firms manufacture or import products subject to the two children's sleepwear flammability standards. These firms may perform an estimated 2,000 tests each, which take up to 3 hours per test. Commission staff estimates that these standards and implementing regulations will impose an average annual burden of about 6,000 hours on each of those firms (2,000 tests × 3 hours). That burden will result from conducting the testing required by the standards and maintaining records of the results of that testing mandated by the implementing regulations. The total annual burden imposed by the standards and regulations on all manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear will be about 498,000 hours (83 firms × 6,000). The annual cost to the industry is estimated to be $30,751,500, based on an hourly wage of $61.75 (Bureau of Labor Statistics: total compensation for management, professional, and related workers in goods-producing private industries:
The Commission will expend approximately 3 months of professional staff time annually, for examination of information in the records maintained by manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear subject to the standards. The annual cost to the federal government of the collection of information in the sleepwear standards and implementing regulations is estimated to be $43,014. This estimate uses an annual total compensation of $119,238 (the equivalent of a GS-14 step 5 employee with an additional 30.7 percent added for benefits.)
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of certain electrically operated toys and children's articles. The collection of information consists of testing and recordkeeping requirements in regulations titled, “Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys or Other Electrically Operated Articles Intended for Use by Children,” codified at 16 CFR part 1505.
The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than December 3, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-0004, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
In 1973, the Commission issued safety requirements for electrically operated toys and children's articles to protect children from unreasonable risks of injury from electric shock, electrical burns, and thermal burns. These regulations are codified at 16 CFR part 1505 and were issued under the authority of sections 2 and 3 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261, 1262).
These regulations are applicable to toys, games, and other articles intended for use by children that are powered by electrical current from a nominal 120
The regulations prescribe design, construction, performance, and labeling requirements for electrically operated toys and children's articles. The regulations also require manufacturers and importers of those products to develop and maintain a quality assurance program. 16 CFR 1505.4(a)(2). Additionally, section 1505.4(a)(3) of the regulations require those firms to maintain records for 3 years, containing information about: (1) The material and production specifications and the description of the quality assurance program required by 16 CFR 1505.4(a)(2); (2) the results of all inspections and tests conducted; and (3) records of sales and distribution.
OMB approved the collection of information requirements in the regulations under control number 3041-0035. OMB's most recent extension of approval expires on December 31, 2012. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval for the information collection requirements in the regulations.
The safety need for this collection of information remains. Specifically, if a manufacturer or importer distributes products that violate the requirements of the regulations, the records required by section 1505.4(a)(3) can be used by the firm and the Commission to: (i) identify specific lots or production lines of products that fail to comply with applicable requirements; and (ii) notify distributors and retailers in the event the products are subject to recall.
The Commission staff estimates that about 40 firms are subject to the testing and recordkeeping requirements of the regulations. Each one may have an average of 10 products each year, for which testing and recordkeeping would be required, resulting in approximately 400 records. Commission staff estimates that the tests required by the regulations can be performed on one product in 16 hours and that recordkeeping can be performed for one product in 4 hours. Thus, the estimated testing burden hours are 6,400 (16 hours × 400), and the estimated recordkeeping burden hours are 1,600 hours (400 records × 4 hours).
Commission staff estimates that each firm may spend 30 minutes or less per model on the labeling requirements. Assuming each firm produces 10 new models each year, the estimated labeling burden hours are 200 hours (40 firms × 10 models per firm × 0.5 hours per model = 200 hours) per year. The estimated total burden hours for recordkeeping and labeling are 1,800 hours for all firms (1,600 hours for recordkeeping + 200 hours for labeling).
CPSC staff estimates that the hourly wage for the time required to perform the required testing and recordkeeping is approximately $61.75 (Bureau of Labor Statistics: total compensation for management, professional, and related workers in goods-producing private industries:
Commission staff will expend less than one staff month reviewing records required to be maintained for electrically operated toys and children's articles. The annual cost to the federal government of the collection of information in these regulations is estimated to be less than $14,338. This estimate uses an annual total compensation of $ 119,238 (the equivalent of a GS-14 step 5 employee, with an additional 30.7 percent added for benefits.)
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed request for extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of residential garage door operators. The collection of information consists of testing and recordkeeping requirements in certification regulations implementing the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators (16 CFR part 1211). The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice, before requesting approval of this extension of a collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Office of the Secretary must receive written comments not later than December 3, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-0001, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
In 1990, Congress enacted legislation, under provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.), requiring that residential garage door operators comply with the provisions of a standard published by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to protect against entrapment. The entrapment protection requirements of UL Standard 325 are codified into the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators, 16 CFR Part 1211. Automatic residential garage door operators must comply with the latest edition of the Commission's regulations at 16 CFR part 1211.
OMB approved the collection of information concerning the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators under control number 3041-0125. OMB's most recent approval will expire on December 31, 2012. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval of this collection of information.
Section 203 of Public Law 101-608 requires that UL Standard 325 shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard under section 9 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2058. The Commission's regulations provide that manufacturers and importers of automatic residential garage door operators subject to the safety standard shall issue certificates of compliance. 16 CFR 1112.20. Section 14(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(b)) authorizes the Commission to issue regulations to prescribe a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with a consumer product safety standard under the CPSA or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission. Section 16(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C 2065(b)) authorizes the Commission to issue rules to require that firms “establish and maintain” records to permit the Commission to determine compliance with rules issued under the authority of the CPSA.
On December 22, 1992, the Commission issued rules prescribing requirements for a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators (57 FR 60449). These regulations also require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of residential garage door operators to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing to support certification of compliance. 16 CFR Part 1211, Subparts B and C. The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers and importers of residential garage door operators to protect consumers from risks of death and injury resulting from entrapment accidents associated with garage door operators. More specifically, the Commission uses this information to determine whether the products produced and imported by those firms comply with the standard. The Commission also uses this information to facilitate corrective action if any residential garage door operators fail to comply with the standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.
Commission staff estimates that about 23 firms are subject to the testing and recordkeeping requirements of the certification regulations. Staff estimates that each respondent will spend 40 hours annually on the collection of information, for a total of about 920 hours. The estimated total annual cost to industry is approximately $25,429, based on 920 hours × $27.64 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries:
Commission staff will expend approximately 6 staff months reviewing records required to be maintained for automatic residential garage door operators. The annual cost to the federal government of the collection of information in these regulations is estimated to be $86,031. This estimate uses an annual total compensation of $119,238 (the equivalent of a GS-14 step 5 employee, with an additional 30.7 percent added for benefits.)
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of record of decision.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 4332(2)(c), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN) NEPA regulations (32 CFR part 775), and the Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual (Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 2), the DoN announces its decision to upgrade and improve the Basewide water infrastructure at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California (MCBCP). More specifically, the DoN has decided to implement Alternative 5, the Preferred Alternative of the Basewide Water Infrastructure Improvements Final Environmental
The complete text of the Record of Decision is available for public viewing on the project Web site at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, October 29, 2012, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.; Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Hilton Garden Inn, 1065 Stevens Creek Road, Augusta, GA 30907.
Gerri Flemming, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of correction.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a decision and order (Case No. RF-022) in the
This Notice of Correction is effective October 4, 2012.
In FR Doc. 2012-20125 published in the
Page 49444, first column, “III. Conclusion,” paragraph (3) is corrected by adding the following paragraph after the first paragraph in that section:
Sanyo shall also use the K factor (correction factor) value of 0.85 when calculating the energy consumption of one of the models listed above. Therefore, the energy consumption is defined by the higher of the two values calculated by the following two formulas (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1):
Energy consumption of the wine compartment:
Energy consumption of the refrigerated beverage compartment:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule; notice.
The Commission issued Order No. 1000, 76 FR 49842 (August 11, 2011) and Order No. 1000-A, 77 FR 32,184 (May 31, 2012). All compliance filings must be submitted in accordance with the Commission's electronic tariff filing (eTariff) requirements in
Effective on October 4, 2012.
Christopher P. Daignault, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8286.
Take notice of the following filing procedures with respect to compliance obligations in
All compliance filings must be submitted in accordance with the Commission's electronic tariff filing (eTariff) requirements in
The filer may request a specific effective date, or, if the date is not yet known (as in the case where the filer wants the tariff sheet(s) to be effective the day after the Commission issues the order addressing its Order No. 1000 compliance filing), the filer may request that the Commission designate the effective date by (1) explaining this in the filer's transmittal letter submitted with its eTariff filing and (2) listing the effective date in e-Tariff as “12/31/9998”.
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Our customers will be able to submit this form electronically.
Ex-Im Bank plans to invite approximately 300 U.S. exporters and commercial lending institutions that have used Ex-Im Bank's short-, medium-, and long-term programs over the previous calendar year with an electronic invitation to participate in the online survey. The proposed survey, modified from the previous survey to account for new policies and programs, will ask participants to evaluate the competitiveness of Ex-Im Bank's programs and how the programs compare to those of foreign credit agencies. Ex-Im Bank will use the responses to develop an analysis of the Bank's competitiveness.
The survey form can be viewed at
Comments should be received on or before November 5, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the auction of certain FM broadcast construction permits scheduled to commence on March 26, 2013. This document also seeks comment on competitive bidding procedures for Auction 94.
Comments are due on or before October 10, 2012, and reply comments are due on or before October 24, 2012.
All filings in response to this public notice must refer to AU Docket No. 12-239. The Wireless Telecommunications and Media Bureaus strongly encourage interested parties to file comments electronically, and request that an additional copy of all comments and reply comments be submitted electronically to the following address:
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
This is a summary of the
1. The Wireless Telecommunications and Media Bureaus (the Bureaus) announce an auction of certain FM broadcast construction permits and seek comment on the procedures to be used for this auction. This auction is scheduled to commence on March 26, 2013, and is designated as Auction 94.
2. Auction 94 will offer 117 construction permits in the FM broadcast service. The construction permits to be auctioned are for 117 new FM allotments, including 26 construction permits that were offered but not sold or were defaulted upon in prior auctions. Attachment A of the
3. Each potential bidder is solely responsible for investigating and evaluating all technical and marketplace factors that may have a bearing on the value of the construction permits for broadcast facilities that it is seeking in this auction. Each bidder is responsible for assuring that, if it wins a construction permit, it will be able to build and operate facilities in accordance with the Commission's rules. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Each applicant should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC permittee in the broadcast service,
4. An applicant should perform its due diligence research and analysis before proceeding, as it would with any new business venture. In particular, the Bureaus strongly encourage each potential bidder to review all underlying Commission orders, such as the specific
5. The Bureaus strongly encourage each applicant to conduct its own research prior to Auction 94 in order to determine the existence of pending administrative or judicial proceedings, including pending allocations rulemaking proceedings, that might affect its decisions regarding participation in the auction.
6. The Bureaus strongly encourage participants in Auction 94 to continue such research throughout the auction. The due diligence considerations mentioned in the
7. The Commission directed the Bureaus, under delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction. Therefore the Bureaus seek comment on the following issues relating to the conduct of Auction 94.
8. The Bureaus propose to auction all construction permits included in Auction 94 using the Commission's standard simultaneous multiple-round auction format. This type of auction offers every construction permit for bid at the same time and consists of successive bidding rounds in which eligible bidders may place bids on individual construction permits. Typically, bidding remains open on all construction permits until bidding stops on every construction permit. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.
9. Auction 94 will consist of sequential bidding rounds, each followed by the release of round results. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week before the start of the auction. Details on viewing round results, including the location and format of downloadable round results files, will be included in the same public notice.
10. The Commission will conduct Auction 94 over the Internet using the Commission's Integrated Spectrum Auction System (FCC Auction System). Bidders will also have the option of placing bids by telephone through a dedicated Auction Bidder Line. The toll-free telephone number for the Auction Bidder Line will be provided to qualified bidders prior to the start of the auction.
11. The Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureaus may change the amount of time for the bidding rounds, the amount of time between rounds, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon bidding activity and other factors. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal. Commenters on this issue should address the role of the bidding schedule in managing the pace of the auction, specifically discussing the tradeoffs in managing auction pace by bidding schedule changes, by changing the activity requirements or bid amount parameters, or by using other means.
12. The Bureaus have discretion to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to complete the auction within a reasonable time. For Auction 94, the Bureaus propose to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach, which means all construction permits remain available for bidding until bidding stops on every construction permit. More specifically, bidding will close on all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder submits any new bids, applies a proactive waiver, or withdraws any provisionally winning bids (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction). Thus, unless the Bureaus announce alternative procedures, the simultaneous stopping rule will be used in this auction, and bidding will remain open on all construction permits until bidding stops on every construction permit. Consequently, it is not possible to determine in advance how long the bidding in this auction will last.
13. Further, the Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to exercise any of the following options during Auction 94: (a) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or places any new bids on a construction permit for which it is not the provisionally winning bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a construction permit for which it is the provisionally winning bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule; (b) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or places any new bids on a construction permit that is not FCC held. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a construction permit that does not already have a provisionally winning bid (an FCC-held construction permit) would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule; (c) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that combines (a) and (b) above; (d) Declare the auction will end after a specified number of additional rounds (special stopping rule). If the Bureaus invoke this special stopping rule, they will accept bids in the specified final round(s), after which the auction will close; and (e) Keep the
14. The Bureaus propose to exercise these options only in certain circumstances, for example, where the auction is proceeding unusually slowly or quickly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time or will close prematurely. Before exercising these options, the Bureaus are likely to attempt to change the pace of the auction. For example, the Bureaus may adjust the pace of bidding by changing the number of bidding rounds per day and/or the minimum acceptable bids. The Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to exercise any of these options with or without prior announcement during the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
15. For Auction 94, the Bureaus propose that they may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of a natural disaster, technical obstacle, administrative or weather necessity, evidence of an auction security breach or unlawful bidding activity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and efficient conduct of competitive bidding. The Bureaus will notify participants of any such delay, suspension or cancellation by public notice and/or through the FCC Auction System's announcement function. If the auction is delayed or suspended, the Bureaus may, in their sole discretion, elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round or from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureaus to delay or suspend the auction. The Bureaus emphasize that they will exercise this authority solely at their discretion, and not as a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.
16. The Bureaus have delegated authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each construction permit being auctioned, taking into account such factors as the efficiency of the auction process and the potential value of similar construction permits. The upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish eligibility to bid on construction permits. Upfront payments that are related to the specific construction permits being auctioned protect against frivolous or insincere bidding and provide the Commission with a source of funds from which to collect payments owed at the close of the auction. With these considerations in mind, the Bureaus propose the upfront payments set forth in Attachment A of the
17. The Bureaus further propose that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine its initial bidding eligibility in bidding units. The Bureaus propose to assign each construction permit a specific number of bidding units, equal to one bidding unit per dollar of the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the
18. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the auction before participating. The Bureaus propose a single stage auction with the following activity requirement: In each round of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility is required to be active on one hundred percent (100%) of its bidding eligibility. A bidder's activity in a round will be the sum of the bidding units associated with any construction permits upon which it places bids during the current round and the bidding units associated with any construction permits for which it holds provisionally winning bids. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any remain, or a reduction in the bidder's eligibility, possibly curtailing or eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal. If commenters believe the auction should be conducted with multiple stages, they should explain the reason for doing so.
19. When a bidder's eligibility in the current round is below the required minimum level, it may preserve its current level of eligibility through an activity rule waiver. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding, not to a particular construction permit. Activity rule waivers can be either proactive or automatic. Activity rule waivers are principally a mechanism for a bidder to avoid the loss of bidding eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent it from bidding in a particular round.
20. The FCC Auction System assumes that a bidder that does not meet the activity requirement would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver at the end of any bidding round in which a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless (1) the bidder has no activity rule waivers remaining; or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the activity requirement. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the bidder's current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly curtailing or eliminating the ability to place additional bids in the auction.
21. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding round by using the reduce eligibility function in the FCC Auction System. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring it into compliance with the activity rule. Reducing eligibility is an irreversible action; once eligibility has been
22. Under the proposed simultaneous stopping rule, a bidder may apply an activity rule waiver proactively as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder proactively applies an activity rule waiver (using the apply waiver function in the FCC Auction System) during a bidding round in which no bids are placed or withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction), the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver applied by the FCC Auction System in a round in which there are no new bids, withdrawals (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or proactive waivers will not keep the auction open. A bidder cannot apply a proactive waiver after bidding in a round, and applying a proactive waiver will preclude it from placing any bids in that round. Applying a waiver is irreversible; once a proactive waiver is submitted, it cannot be unsubmitted, even if the round has not yet closed.
23. Consistent with recent FCC auctions, the Bureaus propose that each bidder in Auction 94 be provided with three activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.
24. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. A minimum opening bid, on the other hand, is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. It is generally used to accelerate the competitive bidding process. It is possible for the minimum opening bid and the reserve price to be the same amount.
25. The Bureaus propose to establish minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 94. The Bureaus believe that a minimum opening bid amount, which has been used in other broadcast auctions, is an effective bidding tool for accelerating the competitive bidding process. The Bureaus do not propose to establish separate reserve prices for the construction permits to be offered in Auction 94.
26. For Auction 94, the Bureaus propose minimum opening bid amounts determined by taking into account the type of service and class of facility offered, market size, population covered by the proposed broadcast facility, and recent broadcast transaction data. Attachment A of the
27. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bid amounts will result in unsold construction permits, are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. The Bureaus ask commenters to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested amounts or formulas for reserve prices or minimum opening bids. In establishing the minimum opening bid amounts, the Bureaus particularly seek comment on factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the broadcast spectrum, including the type of service and class of facility offered, market size, population covered by the proposed FM broadcast facility, and any other relevant factors.
28. The Bureaus propose that, in each round, an eligible bidder will be able to place a bid on a given construction permit in any of up to nine different amounts. Under this proposal, the FCC Auction System interface will list the acceptable bid amounts for each construction permit.
29. The first of the acceptable bid amounts is called the minimum acceptable bid amount. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount until there is a provisionally winning bid for the construction permit. After there is a provisionally winning bid for a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount will be a certain percentage higher. That is, the FCC will calculate the minimum acceptable bid amount by multiplying the provisionally winning bid amount times one plus the minimum acceptable bid percentage. If, for example, the minimum acceptable bid percentage is 10 percent, the minimum acceptable bid amount will equal (provisionally winning bid amount) * (1.10), rounded. If bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction, in the case of a construction permit for which the provisionally winning bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid amount will equal the second highest bid received for the construction permit.
30. The FCC will calculate the eight additional bid amounts using the minimum acceptable bid amount and a bid increment percentage, which need not be the same as the percentage used to calculate the minimum acceptable bid amount. The first additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount times one plus the bid increment percentage, rounded. If, for example, the bid increment percentage is 5 percent, the calculation is (minimum acceptable bid amount) * (1 + 0.05), rounded, or (minimum acceptable bid amount) * 1.05, rounded; the second additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount times one plus two times the bid increment percentage, rounded, or (minimum acceptable bid amount) * 1.10, rounded; etc. The Bureaus will round the results using the Commission's standard rounding procedures for auctions.
31. For Auction 94, the Bureaus propose to use a minimum acceptable bid percentage of 10 percent. This means that the minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be approximately 10 percent greater than the provisionally winning bid amount for the construction permit. To calculate the additional acceptable bid amounts, the Bureaus propose to use a bid increment percentage of 5 percent. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
32. The Bureaus retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bid amounts, the minimum acceptable bid percentage, the bid increment percentage, and the number of acceptable bid amounts if the Bureaus determine that circumstances so dictate. Further, the Bureaus retain the discretion to do so on a construction permit-by-construction permit basis. The Bureaus also retain the discretion to limit (a) the amount by which a minimum acceptable bid for a construction permit may increase compared with the corresponding provisionally winning bid, and (b) the amount by which an additional bid amount may increase compared with the immediately preceding acceptable bid amount. For example, the Bureaus could set a $10,000 limit on increases in minimum acceptable bid amounts over provisionally winning bids. Thus, if calculating a minimum acceptable bid using the minimum acceptable bid percentage results in a minimum acceptable bid amount that is $12,000 higher than the provisionally winning bid on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount would instead be capped at $10,000 above the provisionally winning bid. The Bureaus seek comment on the circumstances under which the Bureaus should employ such a limit, factors the Bureaus
33. Provisionally winning bids are bids that would become final winning bids if the auction were to close in that given round. At the end of a bidding round, the FCC Auction System determines a provisionally winning bid for each construction permit based on the highest bid amount received. If identical high bid amounts are submitted on a construction permit in any given round (i.e., tied bids), the FCC Auction System will use a random number generator to select a single provisionally winning bid from among the tied bids. (The Auction System assigns a random number to each bid when the bid is entered. The tied bid with the highest random number wins the tiebreaker.) The remaining bidders, as well as the provisionally winning bidder, can submit higher bids in subsequent rounds. However, if the auction were to end with no other bids being placed, the winning bidder would be the one that placed the provisionally winning bid. If the construction permit receives any bids in a subsequent round, the provisionally winning bid again will be determined by the highest bid amount received for the construction permit.
34. A provisionally winning bid will be retained until there is a higher bid on the construction permit at the close of a subsequent round, unless the provisionally winning bid is withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction). The Bureaus reminds bidders that provisionally winning bids count toward activity for purposes of the activity rule.
35. For Auction 94, the Bureaus propose the following bid removal procedures. Before the close of a bidding round, a bidder has the option of removing any bid placed in that round. By removing a selected bid in the FCC Auction System, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. In contrast to the bid withdrawal provisions, a bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to a withdrawal payment. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. The Bureaus seek comment on this bid removal proposal.
36. The Bureaus also seek comment on whether bid withdrawals should be permitted in Auction 94. When permitted in an auction, bid withdrawals provide a bidder with the option of withdrawing bids placed in prior rounds that have become provisionally winning bids. A bidder may withdraw its provisionally winning bids using the “withdraw bids” function in the FCC Auction System. A bidder that withdraws its provisionally winning bid(s), if permitted, is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of the Commission rules.
37. Based on this guidance and on the Bureaus' experience with past auctions of FM broadcast construction permits, the Bureaus propose to prohibit bidders from withdrawing any bids after the close of the round in which bids were placed. The Bureaus make this proposal in light of the site-specific nature and wide geographic dispersion of the permits available in this auction, which suggests that potential applicants for this auction may have fewer incentives to aggregate permits through the auction process (as compared with bidders in many auctions of wireless licenses). Thus, the Bureaus believe that it is unlikely that bidders will have a need to withdraw bids in this auction. The Bureaus also remain mindful that bid withdrawals, particularly those made late in this auction, could result in delays in licensing new FM stations and attendant delays in the offering of new broadcast service to the public. The Bureaus seek comment on our proposal to prohibit bid withdrawals.
38. In the event the Bureaus allow bid withdrawals in Auction 94, the Bureaus propose the interim bid withdrawal payment be 20 percent of the withdrawn bid. A bidder that withdraws a bid during an auction is subject to a withdrawal payment equal to the difference between the amount of the withdrawn bid and the amount of the winning bid in the same or a subsequent auction. However, if a construction permit for which a bid has been withdrawn does not receive a subsequent higher bid or winning bid in the same auction, the FCC cannot calculate the final withdrawal payment until that construction permit receives a higher bid or winning bid in a subsequent auction. In such cases, when that final withdrawal payment cannot yet be calculated, the FCC imposes on the bidder responsible for the withdrawn bid an interim bid withdrawal payment, which will be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that is ultimately assessed.
39. The amount of the interim bid withdrawal payment may range from three percent to twenty percent of the withdrawn bid amount, with the percentage generally being higher where there is greater risk of bid withdrawals being used for anti-competitive purposes, such as when there is little need for bidders to aggregate permits. The Bureaus propose to use the maximum interim bid withdrawal payment percentage allowed by 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(1) in the event bid withdrawals are allowed. The Bureaus request comment on using twenty percent for calculating an interim bid withdrawal payment amount in Auction 94. Commenters advocating the use of bid withdrawals should also address the percentage of the interim bid withdrawal payment.
40. Any winning bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of an auction (i.e., fails to remit the required down payment within the prescribed period of time, fails to submit a timely long-form application, fails to make full and timely final payment, or is otherwise disqualified) is liable for a default payment under 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). This payment consists of a deficiency payment, equal to the difference between the amount of the Auction 94 bidder's winning bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time a construction permit covering the same spectrum is won in an auction, plus an additional payment equal to a percentage of the defaulter's bid or of the subsequent winning bid, whichever is less.
41. The Commission's rules provide that, in advance of each auction, it will establish a percentage between three percent and twenty percent of the applicable bid to be assessed as an additional default payment. As the Commission has indicated, the level of this additional payment in each auction will be based on the nature of the service and the construction permits being offered.
42. For Auction 94, the Bureaus propose to establish an additional default payment of twenty percent. Defaults weaken the integrity of the auction process and may impede the deployment of service to the public, and an additional twenty percent default payment will be more effective in
43. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Withdrawal of notice and request for comment.
The FDIC is withdrawing the Notice of Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators (3064-0171) published in the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collection by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
On July 6, 2012 the Federal Reserve published a notice in the
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed —Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20503.
As these data are collected as part of the supervisory process, they are subject to confidential treatment under exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, commercial and financial information contained in these information collections may be exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Such exemptions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The annual FR Y-14A collects large BHCs' quantitative projections of balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios.
Under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve is required to issue regulations relating to stress testing (DFAST) for certain BHCs and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board. On January 5, 2012, the Board published a proposal (77 FR 594) which includes new reporting requirements found in proposed regulations at 12 CFR 252.134(a), 252.146(a), and 252.146(b) all related to stress testing. The Federal Reserve anticipates that further detail regarding these proposed reporting requirements and the PRA burden associated with these requirements would be addressed in a future FR Y-14 proposal.
The FR Y-14A/Q/M revisions proposed in the Federal Reserve's July 2012
The Federal Reserve received comments from the industry by letter, email, and orally through industry outreach calls. Most of the comments received requested clarification of the instructions for the information to be reported, or were technical in nature. Response to these comments will be addressed in the final FR Y-14 reporting instructions. The Federal Reserve also received a number of comments on matters that were not directly related to the FR Y-14 information collection, such as a request to use a consistent file format and requests for clarification of general CCAR procedures and timeline. The Federal Reserve plans to take these comments under consideration and address them at a later date, as appropriate. The following is a detailed discussion of aspects of the proposed FR
In general, commenters expressed support for the objectives of the proposal to revise the FR Y-14; however, they expressed concerns about the overall expansion of the information collection and the increased granularity of the data being collected. Specifically, several commenters noted that the proposal substantially increased the number of data items on various schedules, leaving BHCs insufficient time to make appropriate changes to their models, modify reporting systems, and integrate these systems with internal controls structure. These commenters also requested delayed implementation of the revisions to several schedules or guidance for BHCs that have missing or incomplete data. The commenters also provided suggestions around operational aspects of the collection and requested additional clarification on the proposed revisions.
The Federal Reserve weighed the potential increase in respondent burden against the need to collect additional information to enhance the Federal Reserve's ability to conduct supervisory stress testing and made certain modifications to the proposal in response to the comments received. Specifically, the Federal Reserve will eliminate certain proposed data items from selected data schedules and also delay the effective date of the new Mortgage Servicing Right (MSR) Valuation schedule as noted below.
Commenters generally expressed concerns about the proposed attestation requirement for the FR Y-14 submission. Several commenters noted that the Federal Reserve has continued to revise the information collection since first implementing it in 2011; therefore, the scope and form of the information collection have not been sufficiently solidified to allow BHCs to establish the infrastructure, general controls, and system validation requirements to comply with the proposed attestation requirement. Several commenters opposed a near-term attestation requirement, requested that any future attestation requirement be tailored to the FR Y-14, suggested various modifications to the attestation requirement, and opposed an attestation requirement for projected financial data. One commenter suggested a safe harbor provision for any attestation of projected data.
The Federal Reserve acknowledges that BHCs require time to continue developing and improving the infrastructure and controls needed to accommodate the FR Y-14 collection and to support attestation. As such, the final schedules and instructions do not include an attestation requirement at this time to allow BHCs time to make these improvements. However, the Federal Reserve believes appropriate controls are crucial to ensure data quality and that attestation is an important affirmation of data quality, and may revisit the attestation requirement in a future proposal. The Federal Reserve also notes that under federal law, BHCs are prohibited from making a false entry in a report to the Federal Reserve.
One commenter indicated that foreign privacy and blocking laws may restrict BHCs from reporting on the FR Y-14 any identifiable client information about their foreign clients. In response to this comment, the Federal Reserve will revise the final FR Y-14 reporting schedules and instructions to provide that a BHC will not be required to report a particular data item if a foreign law prohibits the BHC from providing the information to the Federal Reserve. However, the Federal Reserve is authorized by law to collect information from a BHC regarding its credit exposures, including foreign exposures, and a BHC will be required to include with its data submission a legal analysis of the foreign law that prohibits reporting the data to the Federal Reserve.
One commenter noted the difficulty in completing FR Y-14Q/M schedules during acquisitions as the acquiring institution would not yet have the acquired institution's data on their general ledger or loans systems on the date when the acquisition is finalized. Referencing the final
Several commenters provided suggestions for reducing the burden associated with the information collection, including suggestions related to the use of consistent file formats. The Federal Reserve appreciates these suggestions and will work to improve the data collection process, considering all suggestions aimed at reducing reporting burden. During the public comment period, the Federal Reserve sought additional feedback from first-time respondents on ways to reduce reporting burden. One commenter responded that a tailored materiality threshold would increase, rather than decrease burden by adding complexity. This commenter noted that a transition period that takes into consideration related and overlapping deadlines would be useful in reducing reporting burden. The Federal Reserve will provide first-time respondents with a transition phase including extended filing deadlines, as follows: For the Y-14Q schedules, the filing deadline will be extended to (1) 90 days after the quarter-end for the first two quarterly submissions and (2) 65 days after the quarter-end for the third and fourth quarterly submissions. Beginning with the fifth quarterly submission, these respondents will be required to adhere to the standard Consolidated Financial Statements of BHCs (FR Y-9C; OMB No. 7100-0128) reporting deadlines.
The Federal Reserve proposed revising 14 of the 19 worksheets
Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed adding to the
Several commenters noted that the proposed increase in the granularity of balance and loss projections does not align with BHCs' internal reporting and projections. The Federal Reserve acknowledges that the increase in data items will increase respondent burden, but believes that these data items will enhance the Federal Reserve's ability to conduct supervisory stress tests. Each proposed product type has a unique risk profile, therefore, projecting balances at the granular product level should provide a better understanding of BHCs' overall risk exposure. However, to reduce burden, the Federal Reserve will reduce the granularity associated with certain product types to which the industry generally has less exposure.
In an effort to streamline the Summary schedule, the Federal Reserve proposed combining the
The Federal Reserve originally proposed significantly revising the
In response to the industry comments, the Federal Reserve will revise the worksheet to reduce the number of required data items from 32 to 13. The Federal Reserve will remove the distinction between principal and interest, as well as delete certain data items related to cash flows, changes to the non-accretable difference, and changes to the accretable yield. These will be replaced with data items requesting unpaid principal balance, the total original contractual amount of PCI loans that would be deemed charged off or identified as loss under a non-PCI charge-off policy (i.e. losses in the quarter that would be offset at some point against the non-accretable difference and/or the PCI Allowance) and overall movement of the non-accretable difference. The Federal Reserve believes that the revised schedule will substantially alleviate the burden associated with procuring the data from the BHCs information systems.
The
In an effort to better understand the core drivers of BHCs revenues and expenses, the Federal Reserve originally proposed revising certain annual and quarterly PPNR data items, increasing granularity of several data items, and adding a new business line into the components of revenues (on the annual
One commenter noted that, in some instances, certain historical data may not be available due to organizational restructuring. The Federal Reserve agrees with this comment and is considering ways to develop a process and criteria to address this issue, as appropriate.
Another commenter requested eliminating the disclosure of legal reserves data to be consistent with other FR Y-14 schedules regarding the level and frequency of reporting legal reserves data. In response to the comment, the Federal Reserve will delete the data items for “Provisions to Litigation Reserves/Liability Specific to Sold Residential Mortgage Claims” on the annual
Currently, BHCs with deposits equal to at least one-third of liabilities may choose either the
The trade associations and one other commenter suggested retaining the Primary/Supplementary distinction. One commenter also suggested allowing BHCs to report average balances and yields on the
The trade associations commented that reporting the proposed data items on the
Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed adding credit card rewards and partner-sharing in the non-interest income and non-interest expense sections of the
One commenter asked whether the “Sales and Trading Segment/Prime Brokerage/Total Revenue (incl. Net Interest Income)” data item in the
One commenter requested clarification on the types of accounts that should be included in the “Total Deposit Accounts” data item in the “Retail and Small Business Segment” on the
One commenter requested clarification on the definition of the term “curve” in relation to the “New Business Pricing for Time Deposits” data item in the “Average Retail Deposit Repricing Beta” section of the
Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed implementing the quarterly MSR Valuation schedule that would collect information on the data that BHCs use to value their MSRs and the sensitivities of those valuations to changes in economic factors. Several
One trade association expressed various concerns with the proposed new MSR schedule, stating that: (1) It appeared to collect duplicative data already available through other external reporting mechanisms, including a survey conducted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); (2) the questions should be included in pre-examination requests instead of requiring servicers to report the data on a quarterly basis (if the purpose of the MSR schedule was to gather information in advance of a safety and soundness examination); and (3) many servicers are not part of a BHC and therefore, the schedule would not necessarily include data from all major market makers that affect fair value. Further, the commenter noted that the proposed restrictions on MSR assets contained in the Basel III notices of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
Prior to proposing the new MSR schedule, the Federal Reserve evaluated the feasibility of obtaining MSR data from external sources; however, several potential supervisory concerns were noted with this approach. First, not all BHCs supervised by the Federal Reserve complete the external surveys mentioned above. Second, certain metrics collected via external sources differ by type or by construct, or are not collected at all, which may generate a lack of comparability across BHCs. The Federal Reserve concluded that the proposed FR Y-14Q schedule would facilitate the timely supervision of BHCs on both a continuous monitoring and examination basis; therefore, the Federal Reserve will implement the data requirements for the MSR schedule as proposed.
One commenter noted that the MSR schedule would not increase the comparability of MSR valuations across all BHCs due to the range of valuation techniques, various prepayment and default models, different assumptions, and servicing portfolio characteristics unique to each BHC. The Federal Reserve recognizes that modeling methodologies, assumptions, and product structures are unique to each BHC, and these differences are considered when evaluating BHC MSR valuation. In addition, the Federal Reserve may augment this data collection with other information, such as information collected from BHC examinations, which will allow the Federal Reserve to better assess the risk of each BHC's MSR portfolio.
One commenter stated that the proposed MSR valuation sensitivity metrics in the MSR schedule, including metrics related to implied swaption volatility, servicing cost, sensitivity to macroeconomic conditions, and ancillary income, should be revised because they may not be direct inputs into some of the models used by the industry. The Federal Reserve believes that the delayed implementation, as well as clarifying the instructions, will address these issues.
One commenter noted an error on the
Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed revising the annual and quarterly Basel III/Dodd-Frank schedules. To both schedules, the Federal Reserve proposed making definitional and calculation revisions consistent with the final Market Risk Capital rulemaking (Market Risk rule). To the FR Y-14A schedule, the Federal Reserve proposed adding two worksheets and refining the
Several commenters noted errors or inconsistencies in the draft annual and quarterly schedules published for public comment. In response to those comments, the Federal Reserve will shorten the projection period for the annual schedule from 2019 to 2017, add a Comprehensive Risk Measure (CRM) surcharge data item to the annual schedule, and revise the quarterly schedule to include the correct start date of third quarter 2012.
Due to the timing of the publication of the FR Y-14 initial
Specifically, the Federal Reserve will revise the Basel III/Dodd-Frank schedules to be consistent with the NPRs, including (1) revising the Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income calculator, (2) revising the 10% and 15% regulatory threshold deductions, (3) breaking out additional Tier 1 capital deductions, (4) collecting data and corresponding calculations consistent with the final Market Risk rule and the proposed requirements of the Advanced Approaches NPR (for applicable BHCs), (5) revising the Market RWA calculation to reflect the Market Risk rule's CRM, (6) revising the Credit RWA associated with Credit Valuation Adjustment capital charges, (7) collecting data relevant to the Tier 1 Leverage Ratio and Supplementary Leverage Ratio, and (8) revising data descriptions relevant to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio.
Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed revising the Retail Risk schedule to remove data items no longer needed and add risk characteristics to existing portfolios. One commenter noted that the
To the
Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed implementing the quarterly Supplemental schedule to ensure that they would have a consistent view of BHCs' exposures that are collected at different levels of granularity. The proposed schedule would allow the Federal Reserve to identify factors contributing to the gaps between the FR Y-9C aggregate data and the data collected in the FR Y-14. One commenter noted material inconsistencies between definitions in the Supplemental schedule and the Retail
Originally, the Federal Reserve proposed revising various worksheets and adding a worksheet to the Trading Risk schedule. Several commenters made suggestions related to the
One commenter noted that the attachment/detachment points in the
The Federal Reserve agrees that, for bespoke products, the breakouts in the proposal would be challenging to report. However, for index tranches, which are standardized, the Federal Reserve believes that the breakouts in the proposal will be feasible. Further, having such breakouts will enhance the ability to understand correlation sensitivity. Therefore, the Federal Reserve will implement the approach suggested by the commenter for bespoke products but will implement the more granular breakouts for index tranches as originally proposed.
One commenter noted that the schedule currently requires the reporting of corporate owned and business owned life insurance (COLI/BOLI) on the Other Sector/Industry row of the
One commenter suggested disaggregating the
The February 2012 proposal requested event level data for each legal reserve and required that BHCs (1) associate each reserve with an accounting date, Basel level 1 event type and business line; (2) note whether the reserve had been included in the BHCs' capital models; (3) give the amount of the reserve and (4) provide a description for events over $250k. Several commenters expressed concern with the proposed method as they feared if the data were to be disclosed, or if it became discoverable as part of ongoing litigation, it would risk prejudicing the outcome of a pending case. Additionally, commenters stated that because the reserve amount was often highly dependent on the judgment of BHCs' legal counsel, it could be a violation of attorney-client privilege. In a letter dated May 24, 2012, the joint trade associations submitted several possible alternatives.
In response to the comments, the Federal Reserve held a meeting on July 16, 2012, to discuss alternative methods proposed by both the Federal Reserve and the joint trade associations. The Federal Reserve circulated a document that articulated three alternative methods. The commenters expressed concern that these methods did not adequately address the possibility of deriving event-specific reserve information by combining the proposed data with other available data.
During the extended comment period, the Federal Reserve held three discussions with industry representatives and put forth two additional methods (for a total of five alternative methods) for collecting the legal reserves data in an effort to address concerns over the sensitive nature of the data. One of these methods suggested comingling legal reserve data with the
Based on the comments received and discussions with the industry, the Federal Reserve will revise the FR Y-14Q Operational Risk schedule to implement the latter method as described above. BHCs will report, on a quarterly basis, the number of legal reserves, categorized by quarter of establishment (starting in 2008), Basel level I event type, and business line.
As part of the proposal to revise the FR Y-14 as of September 30, 2012, the Federal Reserve proposed collecting various data items related to legal reserves on the FR Y-14A Summary schedule. One commenter requested that the Federal Reserve ensure that any other references to legal reserves be consistent with the decision reached on the FR Y-14Q Operational Risk schedule. Based on the concerns over data sensitivity expressed by the industry, the Federal Reserve will not implement the legal reserves data items specifically for litigation involving retail mortgage repurchases/claims on three worksheets in the Summary schedule:
Based on the comments received related to legal reserves data and in an effort to streamline the collection of annual operational risk data, the Federal Reserve will implement a new FR Y-14A Operational Risk schedule. The schedule will contain two worksheets related to operational risk data submitted annually. The
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 19, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
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
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, has been renewed for a 2-year period through September 12, 2014.
For information, contact Ms. Jameka Blackmon, Designated Federal Officer, BCCEDCAC, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., M/S K57, Atlanta, Georgia, 30333, telephone (770)488-4740; fax (770)488-3230.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with comment period.
This notice with comment period announces a hospital's request for a waiver from the requirement to have an agreement with its designated Organ Procurement Organization (OPO). The request was made in accordance with section 1138(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (the Act). In addition, this notice requests comments from OPOs and the general public for our consideration in determining whether we should grant the requested waiver.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1453-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Patricia Taft, (410) 786-4561.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) are not-for-profit organizations that are responsible for the procurement, preservation, and transport of transplantable organs to transplant centers throughout the country. Qualified OPOs are designated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to recover or procure organs in CMS-defined exclusive geographic service areas, pursuant to section 371(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 273(b)(1) and our regulations at 42 CFR § 486.306. Once an OPO has been designated for an area, hospitals in that area that participate in Medicare and Medicaid are required to work with that OPO in providing organs for transplant, pursuant to section 1138(a)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and our regulations at 42 CFR 482.45.
Section 1138(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act provides that a hospital must notify the designated OPO (for the service area in which it is located) of potential organ donors. Under section 1138(a)(1)(C) of the Act, every participating hospital must have an agreement to identify potential donors only with its designated OPO.
However, section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a hospital may obtain a waiver of the above requirements from the Secretary under certain specified conditions. A waiver allows the hospital to have an agreement with an OPO other than the one initially designated by CMS, if the hospital meets certain conditions specified in section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In addition, the Secretary may review additional criteria described in section 1138(a)(2)(B) of the Act to evaluate the hospital's request for a waiver.
Section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act states that in granting a waiver, the Secretary must determine that the waiver—(1) is expected to increase organ donations; and (2) will ensure equitable treatment of patients referred for transplants within the service area served by the designated OPO and within the service area served by the OPO with which the hospital seeks to enter into an agreement under the waiver. In making a waiver determination, section 1138(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the Secretary may consider, among other factors: (1) Cost-effectiveness; (2) improvements in quality; (3) whether there has been any change in a hospital's designated OPO due to the changes made in definitions for metropolitan statistical areas; and (4) the length and continuity of a hospital's relationship with an OPO other than the hospital's designated OPO. Under section 1138(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Secretary is required to publish a notice of any waiver application received from a hospital within 30 days of receiving the application, and to offer interested parties an opportunity to comment in writing during the 60-day period beginning on the publication date in the
The criteria that the Secretary uses to evaluate the waiver in these cases are the same as those described above under sections 1138(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act and have been incorporated into the regulations at § 486.308(e) and (f).
In October 1995, we issued a Program Memorandum (Transmittal No. A-95-11) detailing the waiver process and discussing the information hospitals must provide in requesting a waiver. We indicated that upon receipt of a waiver request, we would publish a
According to these requirements, we will review the request and comments received. During the review process, we may consult on an as-needed basis with the Health Resources and Services Administration's Division of Transplantation, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and our regional offices. If necessary, we may request additional clarifying information from the applying hospital or others. We will then make a final determination on the waiver request and notify the hospital and the designated and requested OPOs.
As permitted by § 486.308(e), the following hospital has requested a waiver in order to enter into an agreement with a designated OPO other than the OPO designated for the service area in which the hospital is located:
Quitman County Hospital, LLC. of Marks, Mississippi, is requesting a waiver to work with:
The Hospital's Designated OPO is:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of premarket approval applications (PMAs) that have been approved. This list is intended to inform the public of the availability of safety and effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs through the Internet and the Agency's Division of Dockets Management.
Submit written requests for copies of summaries of safety and effectiveness data to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Please cite the appropriate docket number as listed in table 1 of this document when submitting a written request. See the
Nicole Wolanski, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
In accordance with sections 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the FD&C Act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.
The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from April 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents 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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the, discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable, material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice announces the next meeting of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC). The NTP BSC, a federally chartered, external advisory group composed of scientists from the public and private sectors, will review and provide advice on programmatic activities. The meeting is open to the public and preregistration is requested for both public attendance and comment. Information about the meeting and registration are available at
Dr. Lori White, Designated Federal Officer for the BSC, Office of Liaison, Policy and Review, Division of NTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, K2-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone: 919-541-9834, Fax: 919-541-0295, Email:
Time will be allotted during the meeting for the public to present oral comments to the BSC on the agenda topics. In addition to in-person oral comments at the meeting at the NIEHS, public comments can be presented by teleconference line. There will be 50 lines for this call; availability will be on a first-come, first-served basis. The available lines will be open from 8:30 a.m. until adjournment, although public comments will be received only during the formal public comment periods, which are indicated on the preliminary agenda. Each organization is allowed one time slot per agenda topic. At least 7 minutes will be allotted to each speaker, and if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes at the discretion of the BSC chair. Persons wishing to present oral comments are encouraged to pre-register on the NTP meeting Web site, indicate whether they will present comments in-person or via the teleconference line, and list the topic(s) on which they plan to comment. The access number for the teleconference line will be provided to registrants by email prior to the meeting. Registration for oral comments will also be available on the meeting day, although time allowed for presentation by these registrants may be less than that for pre-registered speakers and will be determined by the number of persons who register at the meeting.
Persons registering to make oral comments are asked to send a copy of their statement or PowerPoint slides to the Designated Federal Officer by December 4, 2012. Written statements can supplement and may expand upon the oral presentation. If registering on-site and reading from written text, please bring 40 copies of the statement for distribution to the BSC and NTP staff and to supplement the record.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
During this 60 day period, USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise theForm I-698. Should USCIS decide to revise Form I-698 we will advise the public when we publish the 30-day notice in the
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 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at
All submissions received must include the agency name 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
(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 have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Telephone number 202-272-8377.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of additional waiver and alternative requirement.
This notice describes additional waivers and alternative requirements applicable to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) disaster recovery grant provided to the town of Union, New York, for the purpose of assisting in the recovery related to the consequences of the town's 2011 disasters. HUD previously published in the
Effective Date: October 9, 2012
Scott Davis, Director, Disaster Recovery and Special Issues Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Facsimile inquiries may be sent to Mr. Davis at 202-401-2044. (Except for the “800” number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
Section 239 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-55, approved November 18, 2011) (hereinafter, “the Appropriations Act”) makes available up to $400 million, to remain available until expended, in CDBG funds for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121
The Appropriations Act authorizes the Secretary to waive, or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary, or use by the recipient, of these funds and guarantees, except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment (including requirements concerning lead-based paint), upon: (1) A request by the grantee explaining why such a waiver is required to facilitate the use of such funds or guarantees, and (2) a finding by the Secretary that such a waiver would not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCD Act). Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5.
The Secretary finds that the waiver and alternative requirement, as described in this notice, is necessary to facilitate the use of the town's CDBG disaster recovery funds for the statutory purposes, and is not inconsistent with the overall purpose of the HCD Act or the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as amended. Under the requirements of the Appropriations Act and the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545) (the HUD Reform Act), regulatory waivers must be justified and published in the
Except as described in this notice and the April 16, 2012,
1.
Union, NY expressed its intent to facilitate a full and complete recovery, but recognizes that the CDBG disaster recovery funds will not meet all needs. In its waiver request, the town indicated that damage estimates for town facilities and infrastructure alone were between $3 and $4 million dollars. Based on these needs, the town determined that its primary focus is to repair and improve vital infrastructure that serves and protects more than 50,000 residents of the town. This assessment utilized Census data, damage estimates, insurance claims, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) application data, and Small Business Administration (SBA) loan data. Given the limited CDBG disaster recovery funds available, the town prioritized infrastructure repairs because these improvements will benefit significantly more residents both immediately and in the face of future flood events.
In making this determination, Union, NY identified and budgeted for repairs and improvements to critical infrastructure facilities that will directly benefit and assist recovery in the low- and moderate-income areas that were affected by the disaster, even though when considered together with other populations within the service areas of these facilities, the town recognizes that overall populations served by repairs are not predominantly low- and moderate-income.
After meeting citizen participation requirements, the town finalized a budget that includes over $2.3 million for selected infrastructure and neighborhood facilities. The town provided the following information to demonstrate that the selected infrastructure and neighborhood facilities will benefit low- and moderate-income populations in the disaster-affected area:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Union, NY also carefully considered other unmet needs within the community and how it might meet the remaining recovery needs of low- and moderate-income populations. A local survey of post-flood needs indicated that many of surveyed households are expected to relocate or participate in the FEMA-assisted buyout. In addition, the town consulted Broome County Department of Social Services, which affirms that the affected households generally received FEMA assistance or found other means to support their housing needs. The Broome County Community Organizations Active In Disaster (COAD) and volunteers interviewed a small sample of households in the town and found that the majority of households surveyed had housing needs that were not urgent. Based on this information, the town developed and budgeted for the housing and acquisition programs described below to ensure CDBG disaster recovery funds meet other unmet needs of residents, particularly low- and moderate-income residents. In addition, the town acknowledges that the planning studies it proposes will identify future activities and likely result in several amendments to the town's initial Action Plan based on new information regarding unmet needs:
2. The town has allocated more than $3.9 million to the following activities where they anticipate that the majority of beneficiaries will have low- and moderate-incomes:
a. Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation ($601,378 budgeted).
b. Multifamily Rehabilitation ($100,000 budgeted).
c. Homeownership Incentives ($200,000 budgeted).
2. The town has identified other activities that may also benefit low- and moderate-income households:
a.
b.
HUD acknowledges that the town also included its Small Business Program Structural/Capital Repairs and Non-Residential Floodproofing in this waiver request. The town indicated both activities occur town-wide. In the activity worksheets that supplement the action plan, the town states that these activities address the priority of enhancing job creation or retention for low- and moderate-income persons; however it has classified these activities as intending to meet the urgent need national objective. After considering the materials submitted in support of the town's waiver request, HUD has determined the requested waiver will not extend to these activities. The town identified these activities as part of their priority for low- and moderate-income job creation and retention, the service areas for these activities have not been identified, and the town has indicated that it plans to continue its analysis of unmet needs for its low- and moderate-income populations.
HUD has reviewed the information submitted by the town in its Action Plan and other supporting documentation in conjunction with the Department's review of this waiver request. In its funding allocation methodology, HUD estimated the severe unmet needs of the most impacted counties in each state using the best available data at the time. In its application, the town provided updated estimates of severe damage to storm water facilities, sanitary sewer plans, and water treatment plants and explained its rationale for prioritizing repair to these facilities. The town indicated that since the storm damaged critical utility service facilities, it prioritized infrastructure repairs to significantly benefit residents both immediately and in the face of future flood events. Also, the town's surveys of homeowners and businesses indicate that the need for repair of infrastructure is greatest. The town's submissions provide a sound basis for why a waiver is necessary to facilitate the use of CDBG disaster recovery funds.
The town's submissions also support a finding that a waiver of section 105(c)(2) in conjunction with alternative requirements is not inconsistent with title I of the HCD Act. The town will be able to address its most critical unmet needs, while also ensuring it is able to dedicate at least 50 percent of its entire CDBG-DR award to activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. Maps of affected areas and other information provided by the town demonstrate the unique circumstances faced within areas affected by Hurricane Irene. The maps show flood inundation to be greatest in areas that do not include a majority of the homes occupied by low- and moderate-income residents. The town's priority is to repair damaged infrastructure and neighborhood facilities. Although the service areas of those facilities are often considerably larger than the town's predominantly low- and moderate-income areas, investment in these activities will also benefit disaster-affected low- and moderate-income populations that are within the service area of these facilities. And finally, although the town concluded based on its initial surveys that its greatest need is repair of infrastructure, the town has budgeted CDBG disaster recovery funds for additional studies of unmet needs and plans to amend its Action Plan as needed based on new information acquired in the studies.
HUD concludes that good cause exists to support the town's request for a waiver of section 105(c)(2) of the HCD Act and 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)(i) and
a. Only the activities identified as the
b. If the above referenced public improvements and public facilities activities are classified as meeting the low- and moderate-income area benefit national objective, each must serve an area in which at least 38 percent of the residents are considered low- and moderate-income; and must otherwise meet all other applicable requirements, including those for eligibility and national objective; and
c. The town must continue to identify the specific resources for low- and moderate-income households in each amendment to its Action Plan. If additional unmet disaster recovery needs are subsequently identified among households with low- and moderate-incomes, the town must make reasonable efforts to ensure those needs are addressed.
The activities identified above that may utilize the waiver are only proposed projects at this stage and the town must complete the environmental review process described in 24 CFR part 58 for each proposed project. If the town determines that the environmental review is satisfactory, the town must request and receive a release of funds from HUD before it can commit funds or take any choice limiting action with respect to the projects. Approval of this waiver does not constitute approval of the proposed projects.
As a reminder, CDBG-DR funds used for all infrastructure projects must not duplicate any benefit or other source of funding, such as that provided through FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) program. All work funded with CDBG-DR funds on the above listed projects must be determined as ineligible under the FEMA PA program.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the disaster recovery grants under this Notice are as follows: 14.218; 14.228.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled bycalling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of a Federal advisory committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC). The meeting is open to the public and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The agenda provides an opportunity for citizens to comment on the business before the MHCC.
The meeting will be held October 23-25, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m. each day.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Arlington, 950 North Stafford Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
Henry S. Czauski, Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9164, Washington, DC 20410, Telephone number 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2), through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee was established under section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5403(a)(3).
Please submit written comments, in addition to an oral presentation. The MHCC strives to accommodate citizen comments to the extent possible within the time constraints of the meeting agenda. Advance registration is strongly encouraged. The MHCC will also provide an opportunity for public comment on specific matters on the agenda.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Request for information.
This notice seeks information and invites public comment regarding how HUD can best continue to support the implementation of smoke-free policies for both public housing and multifamily housing. In this regard, HUD is seeking information from the general public and stakeholders, including resident councils, advocacy groups, and housing providers, directly impacted by or involved with the implementation of smoke-free policies in both public housing and multifamily programs. Specifically, HUD is seeking information on best practices and practical strategies from housing providers who have implemented smoke-free policies, ideas for overcoming potential obstacles to implementing a smoke-free policy and methods for supporting residents, and housing providers in transitioning to smoke-free housing. Additionally, this notice requests input from housing providers that have decided not to implement a smoke-free policy and those impacted by that decision. This information will assist HUD to develop and disseminate additional guidance and resources to support public housing agencies (PHAs) and owners and management agents (O/As) who wish to implement smoke-free policies.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments responsive to this request for information to the Office of General Counsel, Regulations Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments” of this notice.
Shauna Sorrells, Director, Public Housing Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4232, Washington, DC 20410-4000, telephone number 202-402-2769 (this is not a toll-free number) or Catherine Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-4000, telephone number 202-708-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
In 2009, HUD issued PIH Notice 2009-21
PIH Notice 2009-21 also referenced a case study produced by the Sanford Maine Housing Authority that concluded that smoke-free units are less expensive to turn over for new residents, due to a lack of damage to carpets, stains on walls and damage to other interior spaces and finishes caused by smoke and burn marks.
As of January 2011, over 225 PHAs have adopted smoke-free policies in some or all of their units. HUD has also received a substantial amount of correspondence from residents, PHAs, O/As, governmental agencies and advocacy groups requesting additional guidance on how housing providers can implement smoke-free policies. On May
In light of the above, HUD is seeking public comment from the general public, PHAs, O/As, public housing residents, multifamily housing residents and other stakeholders to help inform HUD on how best to support housing providers and residents in their voluntary implementation of smoke-free policies while continuing to serve HUD's core mission of housing low-income families. HUD must carefully balance the interests of such policies with the need for low income residents to have decent, safe and affordable places to live.
HUD's purpose in requesting this information is to provide a meaningful opportunity for stakeholders as well as the general public to assist HUD in its development of useful and effective guidance to support the implementation of smoke-free policies in both public housing and multifamily housing. Therefore, in advance of issuing additional guidance and resources, HUD invites interested parties to provide detailed comments on all aspects of this issue. In addition, HUD is providing the following list of topics and questions to which it is seeking substantive responses, including rationales and explanations for the answers provided.
a. What benefits support the implementation of a smoke-free policy? For PHAs and O/As that have transitioned, were there any unanticipated quantifiable and qualitative benefits from implementing a smoke-free policy?
b. Should a minimum percentage of residents support implementing a smoke-free policy before the PHA or O/A implements such a policy? For PHAs and O/As that have transitioned, what percentage of residents wanted a smoke-free policy? How was this percentage determined?
c. What are the greatest risks or costs to implementing a smoke-free policy? For PHAs and O/As that have transitioned, what, if any, were the unintended consequences from implementing a smoke-free policy?
d. How can the benefits, risks and costs of a smoke-free policy be measured or tracked? For PHAs and O/As that have transitioned, are the benefits, risks and costs of implementing a smoke-free policy being measured or tracked and, if so, how and what are the results?
e. What costs might be incurred or monetary savings realized if the PHA and O/A transitioned to smoke-free housing? For example, are savings available on insurance rates or on unit turnover? How can these costs and savings be calculated? For PHAs and O/As that have transitioned, what were the actual short-term and long-term costs and savings resulting from the transition?
f. For PHAs and O/As that have considered implementing a smoke-free policy but have decided against doing so, what were the reasons for deciding not to move forward? Did the PHA or O/A that did not implement a smoke-free policy choose instead to make improvements or adjustments to housing units to reduce the migration of smoke between units, and if so, what were the associated costs?
a. What roles should PHA or O/A management, maintenance staff and resident representatives play in developing and implementing a smoke-free policy?
b. For PHAs and O/As that have implemented a smoke-free policy, what roles did residents, local groups (
c. For PHAs and O/As that have implemented a smoke-free policy, beginning with the initial planning period, how long did it take to implement the smoke-free policy? Was the policy initiated by management or by residents? What were the steps in the process, and how long did each take? What steps were taken to engage residents, including residents with disabilities (
d. How was the policy communicated to residents? How long after notifying the residents was the policy implemented? Was that sufficient notice, and if not, what would be sufficient notice?
e. What are the major elements of a smoke-free policy? For PHAs and O/As that have implemented smoke-free policies, have any changes been made to the policy due to unanticipated consequences? If so, in what ways has the policy changed?
f. What are the most challenging obstacles to implementing a smoke-free policy and how might they be overcome? For PHAs and O/As that have implemented smoke-free policies, what were the most challenging obstacles encountered and how were they addressed?
g. Currently, HUD encourages PHAs to revise their lease agreements to reflect any new smoke-free policy and asks O/As to make these revisions in their house rules. Should the PHA and O/A be required to amend resident leases or house rules if they implement a smoke-free policy? If so, how and when should the leases or house rules be amended? For PHAs and O/As that have implemented smoke-free policies, were leases or lease addendums (house rules) amended?
a. How should smoke-free policies be enforced? What should the consequences of violating the smoke-free policy be? How should the consequences of violating the smoke-free policy be communicated to residents? For PHAs and O/As that have implemented smoke-free policies, what are the consequences if residents violate the policy, what enforcement mechanisms are used and what are the barriers to using the available enforcement mechanisms? For PHAs or O/As that have pursued evictions for failure to comply with the smoke-free policy, have any residents been evicted, and if so, how many times had the resident violated the smoke-free policy before it was considered a serious violation of the lease or house rules?
b. Should residents who smoked before the implementation of the policy be allowed to continue to smoke until they move out or for a specific period of time (
c. Should residents affected by the smoke-free policy be offered other housing alternatives if the residents cannot or will not comply with smoke-free policies? For PHAs and O/As who
a. For PHAs, O/As and residents that have used the “Smoke Free Toolkit,” how was the toolkit utilized and are there additional resources that should be added?
b. What resources are available from the community or state to help residents transition to a smoke-free policy, and do they include cessation counseling or nicotine substitutes (
c. For PHAs and O/As that have implemented a smoke-free policy, what resources would have been helpful, but were not provided? In cases where nicotine substitutes or other smoking cessation resources (e.g., counseling) were provided, were the resources successful in helping ensure the policy was followed? What, if any resources were obtained from tobacco control advocates or health care providers?
30-Day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements for the Notice to Lessees (NTL) on the Legacy Data Verification Process (LDVP). This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these requirements.
Submit written comments by November 5, 2012.
Submit comments either by fax (202) 395-5806 or email (
•
• Email
Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to
Section 1332(6) states that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well trained personnel using technology, precautions, and other techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstructions to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health.” These responsibilities are among those delegated to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
To carry out these responsibilities, BSEE issues regulations to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protect the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases. In addition, we issue Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that provide clarification, explanation, and interpretation of our regulations. These NTLs are also used to convey purely informational material and to cover situations that might not be addressed in our regulations. The latter is the case for this information collection. Because of the unusual nature of this information collection, issuing an NTL is the appropriate means to collect the information.
The subject of this information collection request is the “Legacy Data Verification Process (LDVP),” formerly known as the “Historical Well Data Cleanup Program (HWDC).” It needs to be stressed that the information we are collecting is information that respondents are required to submit under regulations at 30 CFR part 250, subpart D. However, in the past we did not always enforce this regulatory requirement for certain wellbores for several reasons. We did not foresee the value of this information for all wellbores, nor did we anticipate that not having the information would later create problems for the agency and others. We also did not have a sophisticated electronic database that could handle the information. The LDVP IC is found in § 250.467(c). These are the records that the lessee must keep until the well is abandoned. The collection is also looking for any records that should have been submitted to BSEE but are not in BSEE's inventory. The key to this collection is that BSEE wants to know the location of all the wellbores, specifically:
We now collect all of the required information on a current basis (under 30 CFR part 250, subpart D, OMB Control Number 1014-0018). Prior assurance to respondents that providing the
We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.
In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.
To comply with the public consultation process, on May 14, 2012, we published a
30-Day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR Part 254, “Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast Line.” This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.
You must submit comments by November 5, 2012.
Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email (
•
• Email
Nicole Mason, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1605, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to
The BSEE uses the information collected under 30 CFR 254 to determine compliance with OPA by lessees/operators. Specifically, BSEE needs the information to:
• Determine that lessees/operators have an adequate plan and are sufficiently prepared to implement a quick and effective response to a discharge of oil from their facilities or operations.
• Review plans prepared under the regulations of a State and submitted to BSEE to satisfy the requirements in 30 CFR 254 to ensure that they meet minimum requirements of OPA.
• Verify that personnel involved in oil-spill response are properly trained and familiar with the requirements of the spill-response plans and to lead and witness spill-response exercises;
• Assess the sufficiency and availability of contractor equipment and materials;
• Verify that sufficient quantities of equipment are available and in working order;
• Oversee spill-response efforts and maintain official records of pollution events; and
• Assess the efforts of lessees/operators to prevent oil spills or prevent substantial threats of such discharges.
No confidential or proprietary information is collected in 30 CFR 254. Responses are mandatory.
To comply with the public consultation process, on June 6, 2012, we published a
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of establishment; request for nominees.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is establishing and seeking nominations for the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (Committee). The Committee will provide advice on matters and actions relating to the establishment and operations of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and the DOI Climate Science Centers. In doing so, the Committee will obtain input from Federal, state, tribal, local government, nongovernmental organizations, private sector entities, and academic institutions.
Written nominations must be received by November 19, 2012.
Send nominations to: Robin O'Malley, Policy and Partnership Coordinator, National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 400, Reston, VA 20192,
Robin O'Malley, Policy and Partnership Coordinator, National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 400, Reston, VA 20192,
We, the Department of the Interior, announce the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science. We are establishing the Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration.
The Committee will:
• Advise on the contents of a national strategy identifying key science priorities to advance management of natural resources in the face of climate change.
• Advise on the nature, extent, and quality of relations with and engagement of key partners at the regional Climate Science Center level.
• Advise on the nature and effectiveness of mechanisms to ensure identification of key priorities from management partners and to effectively deliver scientific results in useful forms.
• Advise on mechanisms that may be employed by the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center to ensure high standards of scientific quality and integrity in its products.
• Review and evaluate the performance of individual Climate Science Centers before re-establishing expiring agreements.
• Coordinate as appropriate with any Federal Advisory Committee established
We are seeking nominations for individuals to be considered as Committee members. Nominations should include a resume that describes the nominee's qualifications in enough detail to enable us to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Committee and to contact a potential member.
Members of the Committee will be composed of approximately 25 members from both the Federal Government, and the following interests: (1) State and local governments, including state membership entities; (2) Non-governmental organizations, including those whose primary mission is professional and scientific and those whose primary mission is conservation and related scientific and advocacy activities; (3) American Indian tribes and other Native American entities; (4) Academia; (5) Individual landowners; and (6) Business interests.
In addition, the Committee may include scientific experts, and will include rotating representation from one or more of the institutions that host the DOI Climate Science Centers.
The Committee will meet approximately 2-4 times annually, and at such times as designated by the DFO. The Secretary of the Interior will appoint members to the Committee. Members appointed as special Government employees are required to file on an annual basis a confidential financial disclosure report.
No individual who is currently registered as a Federal lobbyist is eligible to serve as a member of the Committee.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Barstow Field Office, Barstow, California, intends to prepare an amendment to the 1980 California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) to identify an 80-acre parcel of public land for possible direct sale. With this notice, the BLM is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the plan amendment with an associated EA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until November 5, 2012. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through the local news media. In order to be included in the EA, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation upon publication of the EA as appropriate.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the plan amendment EA by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this notice will be available for public review at the Barstow Field Office: 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, California 92311.
For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Birgit Hoover, Realty Specialist, BLM Barstow Field Office, telephone 760-252-6035; address 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311. 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 the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question for the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
This document provides notice that the BLM Barstow Field Office, Barstow, California, intends to prepare a plan amendment with an associated EA for the 1980 CDCA Plan, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The planning area is located in San Bernardino County, California, and encompasses approximately 80 acres of public land that has been identified for possible direct sale. The BLM received a request from OMYA, Inc., to purchase the planning area, by direct sale, under the authority of Section 203 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1713). However, the public land described above is currently not available for sale under the 1980 CDCA Plan as amended, and a plan amendment is required to process a direct sale. This plan amendment will be limited to an analysis of whether the public land described above meets Section 203 sales criteria of FLPMA. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process. Preliminary issues for the plan amendment area have been identified by BLM personnel. The issues include: Mineral resources, special status species, and cultural resources. Preliminary planning criteria include:
1. Compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable laws;
2. Coordination with local and county governments; and
3. Government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The BLM will use the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency. 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. The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Minerals and geology, wildlife and fisheries, archaeologists, hydrology, soils, and lands and realty.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file the plats of survey of the lands described below thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is necessary for the management of these lands. The lands surveyed are:
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary of the Wind River Indian Reservation and the subdivisional lines, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Tract 37, Township 5 North, Range 6 West, Wind River Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 846, was accepted September 26, 2012.
Copies of the preceding described plat and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Farmington District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting dates are October 17-18, 2012, at the BLM Farmington District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Farmington, New Mexico 87402, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. both days. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the above address.
Bill Papich, BLM Farmington District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Farmington, NM 87402, telephone 505-564-7620. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico. Planned meeting agenda items include discussion of a planned wild horse gathering and a proposed amendment to the Farmington Field Office Resource Management Plan that would revise how the Farmington Field Office manages the BLM Glade Run Recreation.
Other items on the meeting agenda include discussion of the Taos Field Office transportation plan, an update on the proposed management plan for the Taos Plateau and discussion of the Old Spanish Trail.
A half-hour public comment period during which the public may address the RAC is scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. at Thursday's meeting on October 18. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on May 1, 2012 (77 FR 25744) and determined on August 6, 2012 that it would conduct an expedited review (77 FR 50530, August 21, 2012).
The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on September 28, 2012. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4351 (September 2012), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a limited exclusion order against certain infringing electronic devices, including wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, and tablet computers, imported by Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California.
Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2661. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 14, 2012. Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the limited exclusion order would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 22, 2012.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 794”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 13) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement. The investigation is terminated.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 1, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Microchip Technology Incorporated of Chandler, Arizona (“Microchip”). 77 FR 25747-48 (May 1, 2012). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor integrated circuit devices and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,225,088; 6,245,597; 6,159,765; 5,760,720 (“the '720 patent”); 6,559,783; and 6,847,904. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Intersil Corporation of Milpitas, California; Zilker Labs, Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Zilker”); and Techwell LLC of Milpitas, California. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a participating party. The Commission later amended the Notice of Investigation to change the name of respondent Zilker to Zilker Labs LLC and to amend the Complaint to correct a clerical error concerning which alleged Microchip domestic industry product practices the '720 patent.
On September 6, 2012, Microchip and the respondents filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement and to stay the investigation pending disposition of the motion to terminate.
On September 7, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation pursuant to section 210.21 (b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21 (b)(1)). The ALJ found the issue of staying the investigation moot in light of the grant of termination. No petitions for review of this ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 41) granting in part complainant's motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 13, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Openwave Systems Inc. of Redwood City, California. 76 FR 63657-58 (Oct. 13, 2011). 76 FR 54252 (Aug. 31, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices for mobile data communication by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,233,608; 6,289,212; 6,405,037; 6,430,409; and 6,625,447. The notice of investigation named the following entities as respondents: Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California; Research In Motion Ltd. of Ontario, Canada; and Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas.
On August 17, 2012, complainant filed a renewed motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. Respondents filed an opposition to the motion on August 29, 2012. The Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of complainant's original motion on July 2, 2012, but did not file a response to the renewed motion.
On September 6, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting in part the motion. The ALJ found that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)), good cause exists to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a limited exclusion order with respect to the accused products of respondents Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd., ZMC-USA, L.L.C., Xiamen Kingdomway Group Company, Pacific Rainbow International, Mitsubishi Gas and Chemical Company, Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, Inc., and Shenzhou Biology and Technology Co., Ltd.
Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond issued in this investigation on September 27, 2012. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and a cease and desist order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the exclusion order and cease and desist order would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 29, 2012.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadline stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-790”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
October 11, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
On September 28, 2012, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves alleged violations of the Clean Air Act's hazardous air pollutant control program at 42 U.S.C. 7412, and its Title V federal operating permits program at 42 U.S.C. 7661 at Elm Ridge's Ignacio Gas Treating Plant in La Plata County, Colorado, within the exterior boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. The Consent Decree requires: (1) Payment of a civil penalty of $207,150; (2) performance of a $150,000 SEP to replace 50 residential wood stoves on the Reservation with cleaner wood or pellet stoves; (3) $67,850 paid to EPA's Title V fee fund to recover unpaid Title V permit fees; (4) mitigation of past violations by replacing four engines not presently covered by the HAP regulations with newer, cleaner engines at a cost of approximately $1,050,000; (5) injunctive provisions to ensure forward compliance with the Act's HAP control program on all eight engines at the Facility; (6) replacement of existing instrument gas systems with instrument air systems at a cost of $125,000; and (7) a requirement that Elm Ridge submit an updated Title V permit application to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, which has recently obtained delegated Title V authority.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $10.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On September 27, 2012, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves claims brought by the State of Nevada on behalf of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (“NDEP”) and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (“NDOW”), the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the United States Department of Interior (“DOI”) Bureau of Indian Affairs and Fish and Wildlife Service (“BIA” and “FWS” respectively), the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (“USFS”), and the Shoshone-
The proposed Consent Decree requires the Settling Defendants to undertake a number of obligations including: (1) Implement the remedy selected in the Record of Decision on February 14, 2012, at an estimated cost of over $25 million; (2) pay to the State certain future response costs; (3) pay to EPA certain future response costs; (4) pay EPA $1,234,067 for past response costs; (5) pay to the Federal Natural Resource Trustees, DOI, and USFS, resource damage assessment costs of $709,527; and (6) pay to the Tribes $150,000 for their past and future costs.
The salient features of the remedy include removal of mine tailings and relocation of these materials to an engineered, covered repository constructed on-site; realignment and lining of a portion of Mill Creek, which will be reconstructed to allow for seasonal passage of Redband Trout between the Owyhee River and upper Mill Creek; reclamation of soil and re-vegetation in Lower Mill Creek Valley; monitoring of Mill Creek and the East Fork Owhyee River, and implementation of specific additional tasks necessary to achieve Performance Standards (specified in the ROD); collection and analysis of water samples from downstream points in the East Fork Owyhee River to determine if persistent water quality anomalies in the river exist, and whether they may be attributable to releases from the underground mine workings; and, if so, performance of additional investigation or response actions which NDEP or EPA may require to address anomalies determined to be attributable to the underground mine workings.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $100.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. In requesting a copy exclusive of exhibits and Defendants' signatures, please enclose a check in the amount of $31.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Frederick W. Hertrich, III and Charles Ernesto, pursuant to Sections 301(a) and 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) & 1319(d), to obtain injunctive relief and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to pay a civil penalty, and requiring Defendant Hertrich to impose a deed restriction on a portion of his property.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Amanda Shafer Berman, Environmental Defense Section, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 101 W. Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee will meet on Friday November 9, 2012. The meeting will be held in the Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC.
The Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on technical aspects of the collection and formulation of economic measures. The BLS presents issues and then draws on the expertise of Committee members representing specialized fields within the academic disciplines of economics, statistics and survey design.
The meeting will be held in rooms 1 and 2 of the Postal Square Building Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the meeting are as follows:
The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Lisa Fieldhouse, Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee, on 202-691-5025. Individuals who require special accommodations should contact Ms. Fieldhouse at least two days prior to the meeting date.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add First-Class Package Service Contract 16 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with this filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6824.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-49 and CP2012-61 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 16 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 9, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-49 and CP2012-61 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 9, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 10 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with the filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6824.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-54 and CP2012-66 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 10 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 5, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-54 and CP2012-66 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 5, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add First-Class Package Service Contract 19 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with this filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6824.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-52 and CP2012-64 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 19 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 9, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-52 and CP2012-64 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 9, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add First-Class Package Service Contract 20 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with this filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6824.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-53 and CP2012-65 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 20 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 9, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-53 and CP2012-65 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 9, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add First-Class Package Service Contract 18 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with this filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6824.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-51 and CP2012-63 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 18 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 9, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-51 and CP2012-63 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 9, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to add First-Class Package Service Contract 17 to the competitive product list. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with this filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6824.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-50 and CP2012-62 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 17 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 9, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2012-50 and CP2012-62 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 9, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 27, 2012, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 27, 2012, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 27, 2012, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 27, 2012, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 27, 2012, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 27, 2012, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of September 2012. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
Diane L. Titus at (202) 551-6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.
Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 26, 2012, each applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Applicants have retained approximately $73,311 and $72,526, respectively, in a liquidating trust to pay contingent liabilities. Expenses of $67,715 incurred in connection with each liquidation were paid by BlackRock Advisors, LLC, applicants' investment adviser.
The applications were filed on July 31, 2012 and amended on September 7, 2012.
100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809.
Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicants have transferred their assets to ASGI Mesirow Insight Fund, LLC and, on March 31, 2012, made final distributions to shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $94,356, $276,255, $11,390 and $12,038, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by each applicant.
The applications were filed on May 29, 2012 and amended on August 2, 2012 and September 6, 2012.
Alternative Strategies Group, Inc., 401 South Tryon St., Charlotte, NC 28202.
Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Each applicant transferred its assets to a corresponding series of Mairs & Power Funds Trust and, on December 31, 2011, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $176,460 and $10,714, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by each applicant.
The applications were filed on July 31, 2012, and amended on September 6, 2012.
332 Minnesota St., Suite W1520, St. Paul, MN 55101.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 30, 2012, applicant completed its liquidating distributions to shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $1,500 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
The application was filed on September 19, 2012.
1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105.
Applicant, Washington National Variable Annuity Fund B, a unit investment trust registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”), seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Washington National Insurance Company (“Company”), of which Applicant is a separate account, terminated the offering of Applicant's variable annuity contracts (“Contracts”) in 1981 and has not engaged in any solicitation or marketing activities with respect to the Contracts for 31 years. Since 1981, the number of outstanding Contracts declined as a result of surrenders by owners of the Contracts and deaths of owners or annuitants under their Contracts. As a result, Applicant currently has only 24 beneficial owners of such Contracts. Applicant is not making and does not presently propose to make a public offering of the Contracts. After the deregistration order requested by the Applicant issues, securityholders under the Contracts will be promptly notified that certain legal protections afforded to securityholders of an investment company registered under the Act will no longer apply. However, after issuance of the order, the Company will continue to be responsible for satisfying all the obligations to securityholders under the Contracts.
The application was filed on July 6, 2012.
11815 N. Pennsylvania Street, Carmel, IN 46032.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements.
Applicants request an order that would permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure requirements. The requested order would supersede two prior orders.
PACE Select Advisors Trust (the “Trust”) and UBS Global Asset Management (Americas) Inc. (the “Adviser”) (collectively, “Applicants”).
The application was filed on January 20, 2012, and amended on April 25, 2012, and September 10, 2012. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 22, 2012, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Mr. Joseph J. Allessie, UBS Global Asset Management (Americas) Inc., 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6028.
Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6811, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and currently offers 15 series of shares (each a “Series”), each with its own distinct investment objectives, policies and restrictions.
2. Under the terms of each Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser, subject to the oversight of the Board and in conformity with the stated policies of the Trust, (a) manages the investment operations of the Trust; (b) administers the Trust's affairs; and (c) except with respect to PACE Money Market Investments,
3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to select certain Subadvisers to manage all or a portion of the assets of a Series pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement and materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to any Subadviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust or a Subadvised Fund or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a Subadviser to Subadvised Funds (“Affiliated Subadviser”).
4. Applicants also request an order exempting the Subadvised Funds from certain disclosure requirements described below that may require the Applicants to disclose fees paid to each Subadviser by the Adviser or a Subadvised Fund. Applicants seek an order to permit each Subadvised Fund to disclose (as a dollar amount and a percentage of each Subadvised Fund's net assets) only: (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Affiliated Subadvisers; and (b) the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers other than Affiliated Subadvisers (collectively, the “Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). A Subadvised Fund that employs an Affiliated Subadviser will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the Affiliated Subadviser.
1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees.
4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of a registered investment company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S-X require a registered investment company to include in its financial statement information about the investment advisory fees.
5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants
6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser, subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Subadvisers who are best suited to achieve the Subadvised Fund's investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Subadviser is substantially equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants state that requiring shareholder approval of each Subadvisory Agreement would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Subadvised Funds and may preclude the Subadvised Funds from acting promptly when the Adviser and Board consider it appropriate to hire Subadvisers or amend Subadvisory Agreements. Applicants note that the Investment Management Agreements and any Subadvisory Agreement with an Affiliated Subadviser (if any) will continue to be subject to the shareholder approval requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
7. If new Subadvisers are hired, the Subadvised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser pursuant to the following procedures (“Modified Notice and Access Procedures”): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadviser is hired for any Subadvised Fund, that Subadvised Fund will send its shareholders either a Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information Statement;
A “Multi-manager Information Statement” will meet the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Exchange Act for an information statement, except as modified by the requested amended and restated order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. Multi-manager Information Statements will be filed electronically with the Commission via the EDGAR system.
8. Applicants assert that the requested disclosure relief would benefit shareholders of the Subadvised Funds because it would improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees paid to Subadvisers. Applicants state that the Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that are below a Subadviser's “posted” amounts if the Adviser is not required to disclose the Subadvisers' fees to the public. Applicants submit that the requested relief will also encourage Subadvisers to negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees are not required to be made public.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Subadvised Fund may rely on the order, the operation of the Subadvised Fund in the manner described in the Application will be approved by a majority of the Subadvised Fund's outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act or, in the case of a Subadvised Fund whose public shareholders purchased shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder before such Subadvised Fund's shares are offered to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Subadvised Fund will disclose the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the Application. In addition, each Subadvised Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the Manager of Managers Structure. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
3. Subadvised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Subadviser pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
4. The Adviser will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Affiliated Subadviser without that agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Subadvised Fund.
5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
6. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
7. Whenever a Subadviser change is proposed for a Subadvised Fund with an Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Trust's Board minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the Subadvised Fund and its shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
8. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Adviser.
9. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a per Subadvised Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadviser during the applicable quarter.
10. The Adviser will provide general management and administrative services to each Subadvised Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Subadvised Fund's assets and, subject to review and approval of the Board, will: (i) Set the Subadvised Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate, select, and recommend Subadvisers to manage all or a part of the Subadvised Fund's assets; (iii) allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate the Subadvised Fund's assets among Subadvisers; (iv) monitor and evaluate the investment performance of Subadvisers; and (v) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that Subadvisers comply with the Subadvised Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
11. No Trustee or officer of the Trust or of a Subadvised Fund or director or officer of the Adviser, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any interest in a Subadviser except for (i) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the Adviser; or (ii) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a Subadviser.
12. Each Subadvised Fund will disclose in its registration statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested in the Application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
14. For Subadvised Funds that pay fees to a Subadviser directly from fund assets, any changes to a Subadvisory Agreement that would result in an increase in the total management and advisory fees payable by a Subadvised Fund will be required to be approved by the shareholders of the Subadvised Fund.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On June 15, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), and on June 20, 2012, International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE,” and together with NYSE Arca, “Exchanges”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchanges propose to list and trade mini options
The Exchanges propose to designate mini options contracts with different trading symbols than their corresponding standard contracts.
Further, the Exchanges propose not to permit the listing of additional mini options series if the underlying security is trading at $90 or less and to require that the underlying security trade above $90 for five consecutive days before the listing of mini options in an additional expiration month.
In addition, in their proposals, each of the Exchanges states that it 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 the listing and trading of mini options contracts.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule changes filed by NYSE Arca and ISE are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the listing and trading of mini options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN could benefit investors by providing them with additional investment alternatives. The Commission believes, as noted in the proposals and the KOR Trading Letter, the listing and trading of mini options would make options overlying high-priced securities more readily available to investors, thereby providing investors with a tool to manage risk in high-priced securities.
In its comment letter, CBOE raises a price protection issue with respect to the proposals. Specifically, CBOE states that, in connection with its prior proposal to list and trade both full-value and reduced-value options on the CBOE S&P 500 BuyWrite Index (“BXM”), Commission staff had expressed the concern that having two sizes of options on the same underlying interest created a potential for price protection issues because of the possibility that trades in the reduced-sized options might occur at a price inferior to the price available in the full-sized options, or vice versa.
The Commission notes that price protection would not apply across standard and mini options contracts on an intramarket basis, as these are separate products. The Commission recognizes that trading different options products that overlie the same security or index could disperse trading interest across the products to some extent. In illiquid or nascent markets, increased dispersion across products may cause particular concern, as the markets for the separate products may lack the critical mass of buyers and sellers to allow such a market to become established or, once established, to thrive.
In the case of markets for options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN, there generally exists a critical mass of willing buyers and sellers both for the options and for the underlying securities that mitigate such concerns. The Exchanges propose to limit the listing and trading of mini options to those five underlying securities because they are high-priced and highly liquid securities, and the standard option contracts overlying these securities are among the most actively-traded options.
Further, the Exchanges in their response letters distinguish the current mini options proposals from the CBOE proposal to trade BXM options.
In its comment letter, BOX questions whether arbitrage would ensure that markets for the mini options and standard options would remain within a minimal spread away from the price of the underlying equity share.
The Commission has carefully considered the price protection issue raised with respect to the current proposals. As discussed above, the current proposals would apply only to options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN, which, along with the underlying securities, are highly liquid and have well-established trading histories. The Commission believes that the high trading volume and liquidity in the markets for the five underlying securities and the standard-sized options overlying them would mitigate the price protection concern that commenters noted.
CBOE also states in its comment letter that the Exchanges have adopted rules pursuant to which they may list standard-sized options with non-standard expiration dates (
The Commission believes that other aspects of the proposals are also consistent with the Act. Specifically, the Commission believes that, because each mini option would represent a deliverable of 10 shares of an underlying security, as opposed to 100 shares (
As national securities exchanges, each of the Exchanges is required, under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule changes are 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.
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.
The Exchange proposes to revamp the appearance of its Fees Schedule in order to make it easier for investors to read and determine which fees are applicable to the variety of transactions available on CBOE. No substantive changes to the Fees Schedule, or any Exchange fees, are being made. All information that is proposed to appear in the new version of the Fees Schedule (the “New Fees Schedule”) already appears in one form or another on the Exchange's previous version of the Fees Schedule (the “Old Fees Schedule”).
In conjunction with this proposed re-organization of the Fees Schedule, some items are being moved within the Fees Schedule and clarifications are being given. Currently, broker-dealer transaction fees apply to, among others, the orders of non-Trading Permit Holder market-makers.
The Exchange also proposes adding origin codes into the New Fees Schedule. Origin codes are used on each order sent to the Exchange to denote the type of market participant sending the order.
In SR-CBOE-2012-075, the Exchange proposed to change references in its Fees Schedule to options on the PowerShares QQQ Trust, whose ticker symbol changed from QQQQ to QQQ.
In re-organizing the Fees Schedule, the Exchange added Footnotes (21)-(27) to the New Fees Schedule. The text of these Footnotes was transferred from various sections within the Old Fees Schedule. Footnote (21) of the New Fees Schedule is composed of text from Section 7 of the Old Fees Schedule. Footnote (22) of the New Fees Schedule is composed of text from the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap in All Products Except SPX, VIX or Other Volatility Indexes, OEX or XEO portion of Section 1 of the Old Fees Schedule. Footnote (23) of the New Fees Schedule is composed of text from the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale portion of Section 1 of the Old Fees Schedule. Footnote (24) of the New Fees Schedule is composed of text from Section 10(A)(i) of the Old Fees Schedule. Footnote (25) of the New Fees Schedule is composed of text from Section 10(A)(iv) of the Old Fees Schedule. Footnote (26) of the New Fees Schedule is composed of text from the portion of Section 10(A) entitled “Assessment of Trading Permit and Tier Appointment Fees” of the Old Fees Schedule. Footnote (27) of the New Fees Schedule is composed of text from Section 18 of the Old Fees Schedule.
Other changes were made to references within the Footnotes. Footnote (2) previously said “Please see item 18 for details of Customer Large Trade Discounts.” However, there is no longer an “item 18” but instead just a separate table regarding Customer Large Trade Discounts, and a new Footnote (27) with details of Customer Large Trade Discounts, so Footnote (2) now says “Please see Customer Large Trade Discounts table and footnote 27 for details of Customer Large Trade Discounts” instead. Footnote (3) previously stated that “Trading Permit Holder transaction fee policies and rebate programs are described in the last section.” However, this is no longer true, as the sections have been moved around, and there is now a table regarding Trading Permit Holder transaction fee policies and rebate programs. Instead, Footnote (3) now says “Trading Permit Holder transaction fee policies and rebate programs are described in the Trading Permit Holder Transaction Fee Policies and Rebate Programs Table.”
In both of the Index Options Rate Tables in the New Fees Schedule, the “QCC” field is blacked out. This is because a QCC (qualified contingent cross) trade cannot be made on a cash-settled index (for QCCs, options must be tied to a physically deliverable Regulation NMS security). The Old Fees Schedule listed possible fees for QCCs because the section on index options fees also included fees for exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), on which QCCs can be executed. Because the New Fees Schedule has separate tables for index options and ETFs, the Index Options Rate Tables in the New Fees Schedule has the “QCC” field blacked out.
The Old Fees Schedule lists the AIM Agency/Primary fee and the AIM Contra Execution fee in the section that lists
Professionals and Voluntary Professionals are billed in SPX as Customers because SPX is the only class that trades on the Exchange's Hybrid 3.0 platform, and the classifications as a Professional and Voluntary Professional do not have applicability in Hybrid 3.0 classes. As such, in the Old Fees Schedule, there were no fees listed for Professional and Voluntary Professional SPX trades. The New Fees Schedule, however, lists the SPX fees for Professional and Voluntary Professional (with such fees being the same as Customer SPX fees, both for trades above and below $1) in order to clarify the fees for Professional and Voluntary Professional SPX trades. There is no change occurring in the amounts of the fees for Professional and Voluntary Professional SPX trades (or anywhere else in this proposed rule change).
In the Old Fees Schedule, there are no separate listings for VIX options transactions; as a Volatility Index, VIX is simply included by implication in the listings of fees for Volatility Indexes. The Proprietary Index Options Rate Table in the New Fees Schedule lists VIX options fees separately to make VIX options fees more clearly apparent; the amounts of the fees for VIX options transactions are not changing and will still be the same as those for Volatility Indexes.
In the Old Fees Schedule, Customer fees for transactions in SPX Weeklys (“SPXW”) are not separately spelled out, as SPXW falls within the universe of SPX transactions. However, because SPXW is a product that has experienced a growth in trading volume, the Exchange proposes to separately list the fees for SPXW Customer transactions as well as the Surcharge Fee. The amount of the fees for SPXW Customer transactions and the Surcharge Fee is not changing.
The Exchange has made a universal change to the New Fees Schedule to remove any references in the Old Fees Schedule to fees being listed in a “table below” or similar language when such language no longer applies (i.e. the table is no longer below).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 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.
Pursuant to Section 301 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as amended (22 U.S.C. 4831
The Board will submit its conclusions and recommendations to Secretary Clinton within 60 days of its first meeting, unless the Chair determines a need for additional time. Within the timeframe required by statute following receipt of the report, the Department will report to Congress on all recommendations made by the Board and any actions undertaken in response to those recommendations.
Anyone with information relevant to the Board's examination of these incidents should contact the Board promptly at (202) 647-6246 or send a fax to the Board at (202) 647-6640.
In consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I hereby revoke the designation of the Mujahadin-e Khalq, and its aliases, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to Section 219 (a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(6)(A)). This action takes effect September 28, 2012.
This determination shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended (“the Order”), I hereby revoke the designation of the entity known as the Mujahadin-e Khalq, and its aliases, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Order. This action takes effect September 28, 2012.
This notice shall be published in the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Notice of meeting.
The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council (RRSC) will hold a meeting on Monday, October 22, and Tuesday, October 23, 2012, to obtain views and advice on the topic of a proposed fee increase for permits issued by TVA pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act.
The RRSC was established to advise TVA on its natural resource stewardship activities. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The meeting agenda includes the following:
1. Introductions.
2. Updates regarding TVA's Natural Resource Plan Annual Review, including information about land condition assessments, dispersed recreation web applications, and cultural resources.
3. Presentation(s) concerning TVA's proposed fee increase for Section 26a permits
4. Public Comments.
5. Council Discussion and Advice.
The RRSC will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a public comment session. The public comment session will be held at 9:30 a.m., EDT, on Tuesday, October 23. Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door by 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 23 and will be called on during the public comment period. Handout materials should be limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Resource Stewardship Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-11 B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
The meeting will be held on Monday, October 22, from 1:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. and Tuesday, October 23, from 8:00 a.m. to noon, EDT.
The meeting will be held at the Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 37902 and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in advance.
Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-11 B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632-6113.
Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement dated August 10, 2012, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has agreed to grant restricted temporary trackage rights to BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) over UP's lines between: (1) UP milepost 93.2, at Stockton, Cal., on UP's Oakland Subdivision, and UP milepost 219.4, at Elsey, Cal., on UP's Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 126.2 miles; and (2) UP milepost 219.4, at Elsey, and UP milepost 280.7, at Keddie, Cal., on UP's Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 61.3 miles.
The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on October 18, 2012, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
The purpose of this transaction is to permit BNSF to move empty and loaded ballast trains to and from the ballast pit at Elsey, which is adjacent to the UP rail line. The parties' agreement provides that the trackage rights are temporary in nature and are scheduled to expire at midnight on December 31, 2012.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35676, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 655 Fifteenth Street NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)