Agricultural Research Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Rural Utilities Service
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Indian Affairs Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Transportation Security Administration
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks found in Stringer 11 at the outboard flap, inboard drive hinge at Station Xrs=164.000. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracks in Stringer 11, and a splice repair if necessary; and repetitive post-repair inspections, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in the wing structure not supporting the limit load condition, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the wing.
This AD is effective December 4, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 4, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Roger Durbin, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: (562) 627-5233; fax: (562) 627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supports the NPRM (77 FR 45518, August 1, 2012).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 45518, August 1, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 45518, August 1, 2012).
We estimate that this AD affects 502 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions for the post-repair inspection specified in this 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A243, dated December 20, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks found in Stringer 11 at the outboard flap, inboard drive hinge at Station Xrs=164.000. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in the wing structure not supporting the limit load condition, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 19,000 total flight cycles, or within 8,710 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do an in-tank eddy current high frequency (ETHF) inspection for cracks in Stringer 11 at the outboard flap, inboard drive hinge at Station Xrs=164.000, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A243, dated December 20, 2011. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 29,000 flight cycles.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, do a splice repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A243, dated December 20, 2011.
Within 60,000 flight cycles after doing the splice repair specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Do an ETHF inspection for cracks in Stringer 11 at the outboard flap, inboard drive hinge at Station Xrs=164.000, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A243, dated December 20, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 29,000 flight cycles. If any crack is found: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Roger Durbin, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A243, dated December 20, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For The Boeing Company service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200LR and -300ER series airplanes. This AD requires reviewing the airplane's maintenance records for each rudder power control unit (PCU) to identify the condition of its related reaction link assembly, and replacing the rudder PCU and its related reaction link assembly if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of an abnormal airframe vibration in the aft fuselage during flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent excessive freeplay in the rudder control surface, which could cause rudder vibration, and result in structural damage severe enough to prevent continued safe flight and landing.
This AD is effective November 14, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 14, 2012.
We must receive comments on this AD by December 14, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kenneth Frey, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6468; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
We have received a report of an abnormal airframe vibration in the aft fuselage during flight. A subsequent inspection of the rudder PCU installations found that the bushing liners were missing from all six end cap assemblies on the three rudder PCUs. An investigation revealed that the cause of the problem was failure of the bond between the liner and the bushing substrate because of the use of liquid nitrogen during installation of the bushing into the reaction link end cap housing. This condition, if not corrected, could result in excessive freeplay in the rudder control surface, which could cause rudder vibration, and result in structural damage severe enough to prevent continued safe flight and landing.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011. The service information describes procedures, for airplanes having certain line numbers, for reviewing the airplane's maintenance records for each rudder PCU to identify the condition of its related reaction link assembly, and replacing the rudder PCU and its related reaction link assembly if necessary.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
No U.S. airplanes are affected by this AD. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 0 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 14, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200LR and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of an abnormal airframe vibration in the aft fuselage during flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent excessive freeplay in the rudder control surface, which could cause rudder vibration, and result in structural damage severe enough to prevent continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, review the airplane's maintenance records for each rudder power control unit (PCU) to identify the condition of its related reaction link assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011.
(1) For any reaction link assembly identified during the records review required by paragraph (g) of this AD as having Condition 4, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011: Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected rudder PCU and its related reaction link assembly, and install a serviceable rudder PCU and its related reaction link assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011.
(2) The replacement PCU reaction link assembly must meet Condition 1, 2, or 3 of Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011. As an alternative, the bushings in the PCU reaction link assembly may be replaced in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a rudder PCU and its related reaction link assembly identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011, on any airplane, unless that rudder PCU and its related reaction link assembly meet Condition 1, 2, or 3, of Part 1 of the Accomplishment
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Kenneth Frey, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6468; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0109, dated December 1, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of deformation at the neck of the pressure regulator body on the oxygen cylinder and regulator assemblies (CRAs), and an electrical wiring harness in the area of the oxygen cylinder with no protective conduit sleeving. This AD requires inspecting to determine if certain oxygen pressure regulators are installed and replacing oxygen CRAs containing pressure regulators that do not meet the required material properties. This AD also requires inspecting for damaged wiring, and repairing or replacing wiring if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of the oxygen cylinder, which in the case of cabin depressurization, would lead to oxygen not being available when required; and to detect and correct unprotected wiring that could chafe against the oxygen system components or surrounding structure in the area, and lead to electrical arcing and an oxygen-fed fire.
This AD becomes effective December 4, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 4, 2012.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
During a routine inspection, deformation was found at the neck of the pressure regulator body on the oxygen Cylinder and Regulator Assemblies (CRA) of a BD-700-1A11 aeroplane.
An investigation by the vendor, Avox Systems Inc., revealed that the deformation was attributed to two (2) batches of raw material that did not meet the required tensile strength. This may cause elongation of the pressure regulator neck, which could result in rupture of the oxygen cylinder, and in the case of cabin depressurization, oxygen would not be available when required.
Although there have been no reported failures to date on any CL-600-2B16 aeroplanes, oxygen pressure regulators, Part Numbers (P/N) 806370-12, could be part of the affected batches.
It has also been found that the electrical wiring harness in the area of the oxygen cylinder has been installed without protection. Unprotected wiring could chafe against the oxygen system components or surrounding structure in the area, which could lead to electrical arcing and an oxygen fed fire.
This [Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA)] directive mandates [an inspection to determine if a certain oxygen CRA is installed and] the replacement of oxygen CRAs containing pressure regulators that do not meet the required material properties and to [do a general visual inspection of] and protect the affected wiring.
Corrective actions include repairing or replacing any damaged wiring. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received.
Bombardier requested that we remove the CL-601-3A and-3R Variants of Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes from the
We do not agree to remove the CL-601-3A and -3R Variants of Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes from the applicability of this AD. The commenter is correct that the serial number range captures only the CL-604 Variant. However, we included the other variants in the applicability of this AD to prevent someone from installing the affected parts on those other variants in the future. We have coordinated this difference with TCCA.
To make this intent more visible, we have added “CL-604 Variant” to the heading and first sentence of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, and “All Airplanes” and “CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants” to the heading and first sentence respectively of paragraph (j) of this AD.
We have revised the heading for and the wording in paragraph (i) of this AD; this change has not affected the intent of that paragraph.
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10413, February 22, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 10413, February 22, 2012).
We estimate that this AD will affect about 72 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,120, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that certain follow-on actions (wiring protection) would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain other on-condition actions (repairing or replacing damaged wiring) specified in this 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 5701 through 5802 inclusive, 5804 through 5808 inclusive, 5810 through 5816 inclusive, 5819, 5822, and 5823 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 24, Electrical power; and 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by reports of deformation at the neck of the pressure regulator body on the oxygen cylinder and regulator assemblies (CRAs), and an electrical wiring harness in the area of the oxygen cylinder with no protective conduit sleeving. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of the oxygen cylinder, which in the case of cabin depressurization, would lead to oxygen not being available when required; and to detect and correct unprotected wiring that could chafe against the oxygen system components or surrounding structure in the area, and lead to electrical arcing and an oxygen-fed fire.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
For CL-604 Variant airplanes with serial numbers 5701 through 5802 inclusive, 5804 through 5808 inclusive, 5810 through 5816 inclusive, 5819, 5822, and 5823: Within 750 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 6 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the serial number of oxygen pressure regulators having part number (P/N) 806370-12, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.(3), of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2011. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the oxygen pressure regulator can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) If any serial number is found that is listed in table 2 of Section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2011, before further flight, replace the affected oxygen CRA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2011.
(2) If any serial number is found that is not listed in table 2 of Section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2011, no further action is required by this paragraph.
For CL-604 Variant airplanes with serial numbers 5701 through 5778 inclusive, 5780 through 5796 inclusive, 5798, 5800 through 5802 inclusive, 5804, 5805, 5808, 5811, and 5813: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damaged wiring (i.e., signs of damaged insulation, abrasion, or chafing) of the electrical wiring harness for the oxygen CRA, and protect the electrical wiring harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-005, dated January 31, 2011. If any damaged wiring is found, before further flight, repair or replace any damaged wiring, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated agent).
(1) For airplanes on which the oxygen CRA must be replaced, as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: At the time the oxygen CRA is replaced.
(2) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Within 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, dated January 31, 2011.
For all airplanes (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants): As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen pressure regulator (P/N 806370-12) having any serial number listed in table 2 of Section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2011, on any airplane, unless a suffix “-A” is beside the serial number.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-11, dated May 25, 2011, and the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, for related information.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-005, dated January 31, 2011.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2011.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-24-005, dated January 31, 2011.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-001, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2011.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by cases of on-ground failure of the screw cap or end cap of hydraulic accumulators on other airplane models, resulting in high-energy impact damage to adjacent systems and structure. This AD requires inspecting for a part number and replacing the affected parking brake hydraulic accumulator, and relocating the parking brake accumulator, on the subject airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the screw caps and/or end caps of the parking brake hydraulic accumulator, which could result in damage to the airplane's primary structures, with potential adverse effect on the airplane's controllability.
This AD becomes effective December 4, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 4, 2012.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531; email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
Seven cases of on-ground hydraulic accumulator/screw cap/end cap failure have been experienced on CL-600-2B19 (CRJ) aeroplanes, resulting in loss of the associated hydraulic system and high-energy impact damage to adjacent systems and structure. To date, the lowest number of flight cycles accumulated at the time of failure has been 6991.
Although there have been no failures to date on any DHC-8 aeroplanes, similar accumulators to those installed on the CL-600-2B19, Part Number (P/N) 08-60197-001 (Parking Brake Accumulator), are installed on the aeroplanes listed in the Applicability section of this [Canadian] Airworthiness Directive (AD). It was also found that some of these accumulators may be affected by manufacturing non-conformances.
A detailed analysis of the systems and structure in the potential line of trajectory of a failed screw cap/end cap for the accumulator has been conducted. It has been identified that the worst-case scenarios would be the damage to the aeroplane's primary structures, which could have an adverse effect on the controllability of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the [inspection for part and serial numbers and] replacement of the affected hydraulic accumulators and the relocation of the parking brake accumulator.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 45981, August 2, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed-except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 45981, August 2, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 45981, August 2, 2012).
We estimate that this AD will affect about 83 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 17 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $5,205 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 this AD to the U.S. operators to be $551,950, or $6,650 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $4,643, for a cost of $4,898 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 through 4346 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by cases of on-ground hydraulic accumulator/screw cap/end cap failure, resulting in high-energy impact damage to adjacent systems and structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the screw caps and/or end caps of the hydraulic and parking brake accumulators, which could result in damage to the airplane's primary structures, with potential adverse effect on the airplane's controllability.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 through 4337 inclusive: Within 1,200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first, inspect the parking brake hydraulic accumulator to determine the part number and serial number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-88, dated February 16, 2011.
(1) If the part number of the parking brake hydraulic accumulator can be determined by the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and is not identified in paragraph 1., Effectivity, of Goodrich Service Bulletin 08 60197 001-32-70 R2, dated February 1, 2011: No further action is required by this paragraph.
(2) If the part number and serial number of the parking brake hydraulic accumulator cannot be determined by the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or is identified in paragraph 1. Effectivity, of Goodrich Service Bulletin 08 60197 001-32-70 R2, dated February 1, 2011: Before further flight, replace the parking brake hydraulic accumulator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-88, dated February 16, 2011.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 through 4068 inclusive, 4070 through 4214 inclusive, 4216, 4219 through 4261 inclusive, and 4263 through 4346 inclusive: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, relocate the parking brake hydraulic accumulator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-87, Revision B, dated November 22, 2011.
(2) Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD in accordance with previous revisions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-87 does not meet the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-04, dated January 13, 2012, and the service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(3) of this AD, for related information.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-87, Revision B, dated November 22, 2011.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-88, dated February 16, 2011.
(3) Goodrich Service Bulletin 08 60197 001-32-70 R2, dated February 1, 2011.
(1) The Director of the
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-87, Revision B, dated November 22, 2011.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-88, dated February 16, 2011.
(iii) Goodrich Service Bulletin 08 60197 001-32-70 R2, dated February 1, 2011.
(3) For Bombardier, Inc., service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; request for comments.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Veterans Memorial Bridge across the Taunton River, mile 2.1, between Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. This deviation will allow us to test an operating schedule to help determine the hours the bridge should be crewed. It is expected that this test will help determine the best operating schedule that will meet the present and future needs of navigation.
This deviation is effective from December 1, 2012, through May 29, 2013.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 1, 2013. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 1, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0895 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District bridge Program the Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8364, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0895), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before March 1, 2013, using one of the four methods specified under
The Veterans Memorial Bridge at mile 2.1, across the Taunton River between Somerset and Fall River, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance of 60 feet at mean high water and 66 feet at mean low water. The horizontal clearance is 200 feet between the bridge protective fenders. The drawbridge operation regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.5, require the bridge to open on signal at all times.
The waterway users are predominantly seasonal recreational vessels.
The Veterans Memorial Bridge is a newly constructed double leaf bascule highway bridge at mile 2.1, upstream from the existing Brightman Street Route 6 highway bridge at mile 1.8, across the Taunton River.
The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, submitted a request to the Coast Guard to change the drawbridge operating regulations that presently require the draw to be crewed 24 hours a day and open on signal at all times.
The bridge owner proposes to crew the bridge less than 24 hours a day and operate the bridge as follows: The draw shall open on signal between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. daily. From 9 p.m. through 5 a.m., the draw shall open on signal after at least a 1-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. From 6 p.m. on December 24 to midnight on December 25, and from 6 p.m. on December 31 to midnight on January 1, the draw shall open on signal if at least a 2-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
The Coast Guard has decided to test the designated operating hours for the new bridge for 180 days to help determine if this schedule will meet the reasonable needs of navigation that presently transit the new bridge. Since this is a new bridge there is no historical record of bridge openings to help us determine if this request is reasonable.
It is anticipated that due to the high vertical clearance of 60 feet at mean high water and 66 feet at mean low, that the bridge should not be required to open frequently except for large sail vessels.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard has established fixed security zones around and under any cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, California. This regulation was created for national security reasons to protect cruise ships, vessels, users of the waterway and the port from potential terrorist acts. These security zones encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750). Mariners can determine the exact time and date of these zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or via visual verification of the cruise ships on AIS. Entries into these zones are prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach (LA-LB), or his designated representative.
This rule is effective November 29, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2011-0906]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Brett DiManno, USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach at (310) 521-3860, or
This rule was proposed and published in the
In its effort to thwart terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has increased safety and security measures on U.S. ports and waterways. As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-399), Congress added section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions, including the establishment of security and safety zones, to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has authority to establish security zones pursuant to the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191
In order to address the aforementioned security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a cruise ship would have on the public interest, the Coast Guard has established security zones around and under cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, California. This security zone helps the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against cruise ships. The Coast Guard has determined the establishment of security zones is prudent for cruise ships because they carry a multitude of passengers.
Based on experience with security zone enforcement operations, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has concluded that these security zones will encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship which is located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34-24-17.364 N, 119-41-16.260W). These security zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the cruise ship, vessels, and users of the waterway.
The Coast Guard received one comment to the proposed rule. The comment suggested that Automatic Identification System (AIS) be used to advertise the location of the security zone. The Coast Guard agrees in principle with the comment; however, we made no regulatory changes. While mariners with AIS may be able to locate cruise ships in the Santa Barbara area, the majority of boaters will be able to locate the cruise ships visually, due to the small geographic size and depth restrictions of the harbor. In an effort to keep mariners informed, the Coast Guard will continue to advertise active security zones via broadcast notice to mariner.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts access to a portion of navigable waters, the effect of this regulation is not significant because:
(i) The zones only encompass a small portion of the waterway;
(ii) vessels are able to pass safely around the zones; and
(iii) vessels may be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port
The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for all cruise ships and other vessels operating in the vicinity of these vessels, adjoining areas, and the public. The entities most likely to be affected are fishing vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in Santa Barbara Harbor within a 100-yard radius of cruise ships covered by this rule.
This security zone regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessel traffic can pass safely around the zones.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule does not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule does cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of security zones.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the COTP LA-LB at telephone number 1-310-521-3801 or on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.800 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on the waters of Ybor Channel in Tampa, Florida around the USCGC WILLIAM FLORES immediately before and during its Commissioning Ceremony that will be held on November 3, 2012, in the Port of Tampa, on Ybor Channel at Channelside Cruise Terminal 3, located in position 27°56.598′ N, 082°26.724′ W. The security zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and is necessary to protect USCGC WILLIAM FLORES, official parties, dignitaries, the public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entering or remaining in the security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
This rule is effective and will be enforced on November 3, 2012, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0885. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email Boatswains Mate Second Class Gregory A. Belkin, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191 Ext. 8158, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard did not have necessary information regarding the event with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments in advance of the effective date of the security zone. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest as immediate action is needed to protect USCGC WILLIAM FLORES, official parties, dignitaries, visiting officials, the public, and the surrounding waterway from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this rule is to protect USCGC WILLIAM FLORES, official parties, dignitaries, visiting officials, the public, and the surrounding waterway from potential terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.
On November 3, 2012, the USCGC WILLIAM FLORES Commissioning Ceremony will be held in the Port of Tampa, on Ybor Channel at Channelside Cruise Terminal 3, located in position 27°56.598′ N, 082°26.724′ W. The temporary security zone encompasses
All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter or remain in the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7524, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter or remain within the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. Recreational vessels authorized to enter or remain within the regulated areas may be subject to boarding and inspection of the vessel and persons onboard. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the security zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The security zone will be enforced for a total of 8 hours; (2) the security zone will be in a location where commercial vessel traffic is expected to be minimal; (3) commercial vessel traffic may be authorized to transit the security zones to the extent compatible with public safety and security; (4) persons and vessels will be able to operate in the surrounding area adjacent to the security zones during the enforcement period; (5) persons and vessels will be able to enter or remain within the security zones if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (6) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the security zone to the local community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter or remain within those portions of Ybor Channel encompassed within the security zone from 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. on November 3, 2012. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing temporary security zone, as described in paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction that will be enforced for a total of 8 hours. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and categorical exclusion determination supporting this determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) If authorization to enter or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. Recreational vessels authorized to enter the regulated area may be subject to boarding and inspection of the vessel and persons onboard.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is making four separate and independent air quality determinations for two areas in New Hampshire. First, EPA is determining that the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, New Hampshire serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area met the applicable deadline of November 15, 1999, for attaining the revoked one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Second, EPA is determining that the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester area has attained the one-hour ozone standard since 1999, and continues to attain the standard. Third, with respect to the Manchester, New Hampshire marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment area, EPA is determining that the area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of November 15, 1993. Fourth, with respect to the Manchester area, EPA is determining that the area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS since 1993, and continues to attain the standard.
This rule is effective on November 29, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0229. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1664, fax number (617) 918-0664, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
EPA is making two separate and independent final determinations for the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter, “the Portsmouth area”). EPA is determining that the Portsmouth area attained the revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of November 15, 1999. This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data for the 1997-1999 ozone seasons showing that the area had an expected ozone exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS during that period and therefore attained the standard by its applicable deadline. EPA is also determining that the Portsmouth area has attained the standard based on complete, certified and quality-assured ozone monitoring data since 1999, and that it continues to attain the standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data (2009-2011). In addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data show the area continues to attain.
EPA is making two separate and independent final determinations for the Manchester, NH marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is determining that the Manchester marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of November 15, 1993. This determination is based upon complete, certified, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1991-1993 ozone seasons showing that the area had an expected ozone exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS during that period, and therefore attained the standard by its applicable deadline. EPA is also determining that the Manchester area has attained the one-hour ozone standard since 1993, and continues to attain the standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data (2009-2011). In addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data show the area continues to attain.
Additional information related to these determinations and the rationale for them are set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) published on July 19, 2012 (77 FR 42470) and will not be restated here. EPA received no comments on the NPR.
After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding requirements. See
EPA is making four separate and independent determinations. First, EPA is determining that the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area met the applicable deadline of November 15, 1999, for attaining the one-hour NAAQS for ozone, based on 1997-1999 complete, certified and quality-assured ozone monitoring data. Second, EPA is determining that the Portsmouth, NH area has attained the standard based on complete, certified and quality-assured ozone monitoring data since 1999, and that it continues to attain the standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured ozone monitoring data. In addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data show the area continues to attain. Third, EPA is determining that the Manchester, NH marginal ozone nonattainment area met the applicable deadline of November 15, 1993, for attaining the revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete, certified, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1991-1993 monitoring period showing that the area had an expected ozone exceedance rate below the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS during that period and therefore attained the standard by its applicable deadline. Fourth, with respect to the Manchester area, EPA is determining, that the area has attained the one-hour ozone standard since 1993, and continues to attain the standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data. In addition, preliminary 2012 ozone data show the area continues to attain.
These actions make determinations of attainment based on air quality, and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:
• Are not “significant regulatory actions” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do 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, these actions do 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 31, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(g)
(h)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on December 14, 2011. This revision defers until July 21, 2014 the application of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements to biogenic carbon dioxide (CO
This final rule is effective on November 29, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0169. All documents in the docket are listed in the
David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On April 18, 2012, (77 FR 23178), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of a revision to the Virginia SIP which would defer until July 21, 2014 the application of PSD permitting requirements to biogenic CO
EPA incorporated the biomass deferral into the regulations governing state programs and into the Federal PSD program by amending the definition of “subject to regulation” under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 respectively. Virginia has adopted this same approach. The SIP revision incorporates the Biomass Deferral into Virginia's PSD program by amending the definition of “subject to regulation” under 9VAC5-85-50C. The language adopted by Virginia mirrors the language in the Federal regulations. EPA last took action on these provisions on May 13, 2011 (76 FR 27898). In addition to the incorporation of the Biomass Deferral, the SIP revision makes a minor, clarifying revision to 9VAC5-85-50B.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
EPA received two sets of timely public comments. Both sets were supportive of our proposed action, and are included in the docket. While it is not generally our practice to respond to specific comments when those comments are in support of a proposed action, one of the submitted comments contained some factual inaccuracies which we feel should be addressed and corrected for the record. One commenter wrote in closing: “Because the PSD provisions of the Biomass Deferral have already been incorporated into Virginia's SIP and approved by EPA in 2011, the current 2012 proposed SIP revisions incorporate the Title V provisions of the Biomass Deferral through (
EPA is approving the revisions to 9VAC5-85-50 into the Virginia SIP.
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 31, 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 GHG permitting under Virginia's PSD program may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving the fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on November 29, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0152. 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 August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50964), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the District of Columbia. The NPR proposed approval of the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the District of Columbia SIP revision. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the District of Columbia on April 2, 2008.
The 2002 base year emissions inventory submitted by DDOE on April 2, 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 31, 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)
(e) EPA approves as a revision to the District of Columbia State Implementation Plan the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the District of Columbia portion of the Washington DC-MD-VA 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” the Maritime Administration (MarAd) solicited public comment concerning clarification of its regulations pertaining to seamen's claims, administrative action taken against MarAd, and litigation pertaining to such matters. No comments were received as a result of the agency's solicitation. By this rulemaking, MarAd is updating and modernizing the existing regulations and adopting a procedural process to more effectively address claims arising under the Suits in Admiralty Act, the Admiralty Extension Act and the Clarification Act. The existing regulations implement the Clarification Act. The newly added regulations implement a process to resolve administrative claims arising under the Admiralty Extension Act, and both the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Public Vessels Act, respectively.
This rule is effective November 29, 2012.
You may contact Jay Gordon, Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and General Law, at (202) 366-5173. You may send mail to Mr. Gordon at Office of Chief Counsel, MAR-221, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may send electronic mail to
On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563, which outlined a plan to improve regulation and regulatory review (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 reaffirms and builds upon governing principles of contemporary regulatory review, including Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), by requiring Federal agencies to design cost-effective, evidence-based
Accordingly, the Maritime Administration identified its administrative claims regulations governing seaman's administrative actions and claim litigation for improvement consistent with the President's order. 46 CFR Part 327 prescribes rules and regulations pertaining to the filing of admiralty claims and the administrative allowance or disallowance (actual or presumed) of such claims, in whole or in part. The existing Part 327 addresses only Seamen's Claims. The proposed rule was published February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5217). This Final Rule divides Part 327 into three subparts, all of which are related to admiralty claims. Subpart A addresses Seamen's Claims governed by the Clarification Act, 50 U.S.C. 1291(a). Subpart B addresses claims filed under the Admiralty Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. 30101, a statutory provision which extends the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States to cases of injury or damage to a person or property caused by a vessel on navigable waters, even though the injury or damage is done or consummated on land. Subpart C establishes a procedure for filing administrative claims for all admiralty claims not covered by Subparts A or B, or the Contracts Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601
The filing of proper administrative claims under Subparts A and B must take place before filing suit against the United States. For example, under the Clarification Act, before suit can be filed against the United States, there must be a denial of an administrative claim filed by officers and members of crews injured aboard MarAd vessels. Before suit can be filed against the United States under the Admiralty Extension Act, there must be an administrative denial of a claim filed under that Act or 6 months must have passed after the claim is presented in writing to the agency. The new Subpart C establishes an optional procedure whereby anyone having an admiralty claim not covered by either Subparts A, B or under the Contracts Disputes Act can file an administrative claim with MarAd.
Subpart A of Part 327 has also been updated to include technical changes such as MarAd's new address at 1200 New Jersey Avenue and to include corrections to statutory references, some of which were made obsolete as the result of the codification of the Appendix to title 46 of the United States Code. In addition to these technical changes, MarAd modernizes the regulation by allowing the use of pictures and video recordings as evidence in administrative actions and litigation. The current regulations do not provide for the use of such evidence. The new regulation also requires that the seamen filing claims sign the claims and verify that they are correct.
Subpart B sets out specific details concerning compliance with the administrative claim requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. 30301(c)(2), with respect to filing suit against the United States. Under this provision, no civil suit can be filed against the United States “until the expiration of the 6-month period after the claim has been presented in writing to the agency owning or operating the vessel causing the injury or damage.”
Subpart C provides a means whereby an administrative claim can be filed with respect to any other admiralty matters not addressed in Subparts A and C or in the Contracts Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601
Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), supplemented by E.O.13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011) and DOT policies and procedures, MarAd must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant,” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the E.O. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities. (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency. (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.
MarAd has determined that this final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It also is not considered a major rule for purposes of Congressional review under Public Law 104-121. The rule is also not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). The costs and overall economic impact of this rulemaking do not require further analysis.
We analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) and have determined that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, MarAd did not consult with State and local officials because it was not necessary.
MarAd does not believe that this final rule will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments). Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of this Executive Order do not apply.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires MarAd to assess whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and to minimize any adverse impact. MarAd certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have analyzed this final rule for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
MarAd has determined that the rule would not significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. Therefore, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules that involve an environmental health or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. As discussed previously, this rule is not economically significant, and it would cause no environmental or health risk that disproportionately affects children.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden.
This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies adopting Government technical standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a separate statement to OMB. MarAd determined that there are no voluntary national consensus standards related to the filing of the seamen's claims, administrative actions and Admiralty Extension Act claims addressed by this regulation.
This rule is not expected to contain standards-related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268) requires the Department of Transportation and certain other Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each rule that will affect the privacy of individuals. Claims submitted under this rule will be treated the same as all legal claims received by MarAd. The processing and treatment of any claim within the scope of this rulemaking by MarAd shall comply with all legal, regulatory and policy requirements regarding privacy.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires Agencies to evaluate whether an Agency action would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $141.3 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these unfunded mandates. This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $141.3 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Administrative practice and procedures, Claims, Seaman.
46 U.S.C. Chapters 301-309.
This part prescribes rules and regulations pertaining to the filing of claims designated in § 327.3 and the administrative allowance, or disallowance (actual and presumed), of such claims, in whole or in part, filed by officers and members of crews (hereafter referred to as “seamen”) employed on vessels as employees of the United States through the National Shipping Authority (NSA), Maritime Administration (MarAd), or successor.
These regulations are enacted to implement the administrative claims procedures set forth in 50 U.S.C. App. 1291(a).
All claims specified in 50 U.S.C. App. 1291(a) shall be submitted for administrative consideration, as provided in §§ 327.4 and 327.5, prior to institution of court action thereon.
(a)
(1) In writing,
(2) Designated as a claim,
(3) Disclose that the object sought is the administrative allowance of the claim,
(4) Comply with the requirements of this part, and
(5) Filed as provided in § 327.5.
(6) The claim must be signed or attested to by the claimant. The statements made in the claim should be made to the best of the knowledge of the claimant and are subject to the provision of 18 U.S.C. 287 and 1001 and all other penalty provisions for making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims, statements or entries, or falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States. Any lawsuits filed contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the Suits in Admiralty Act, as amended by Public Law 877, 81st Congress (64 Stat. 1112; 46 U.S.C. 30901
(b)
(1) With respect to the seaman:
(i) Name;
(ii) Mailing address;
(iii) Date of birth;
(iv) Legal residence address;
(v) Place of birth; and
(vi) Merchant mariner license or document number and social security number.
(2) With respect to the basis for the claim:
(i) Name of vessel on which the seaman was serving when the incident occurred that is the basis for the claim;
(ii) Place where the incident occurred;
(iii) Time of incident—year, month and day, and the precise time of day, to the minute, where possible;
(iv) Narrative of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, including a statement explaining why the United States is liable for this claim;
(v) Pictures, video recordings and other physical evidence related to the case and
(vi) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers, if available, of others who can supply factual information about the incident and its consequences.
(3) A sum certain dollar amount of claim, which includes a total for all amounts sought. The claim shall explain the amounts sought for:
(i) Past loss of earnings or earning capacity;
(ii) Future loss of earnings or earning capacity;
(iii) Medical expenses paid out of pocket;
(iv) Pain and suffering; and
(v) Any other loss arising out of the incident (describe).
(4) All medical and clinical records of physicians and hospitals related to a seaman's claim for injury, illness, or death shall be attached. If the claimant does not have a copy of each record, the claimant shall identify every physician and hospital having records relating to the seaman and shall provide written authorization for MarAd to obtain all such records. The claim shall also include the number of days the seaman worked as a merchant mariner and the earnings received for the current calendar year, as well as for the two preceding calendar years.
(5) If the claim does not involve a seaman's death, the following information shall be submitted with the claim:
(i) Date the seaman signed a reemployment register as a merchant mariner;
(ii) Copy of the medical fit-for-duty certificate issued to the seaman;
(iii) Date and details of next employment as a seaman; and
(iv) Date and details of next employment as other than a seaman.
(6) If the claim is for other than personal injury, illness or death, the claim shall provide all supporting information concerning the nature and dollar amount of the loss.
(a) Claims may be filed by or on behalf of seamen or their surviving dependents or beneficiaries, or by their legal representatives. Claims shall be filed either by personal delivery or by registered mail.
(b) The claimant shall send the claim directly to the Chief, Division of Marine Insurance, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. A copy of each claim shall be filed with the Ship Manager or General Agent of the vessel with respect to which such claim arose.
MarAd shall give prompt notice in writing of the allowance or disallowance of each claim, in whole or in part, by mail to the last known address of, or by personal delivery to, the claimant or the claimant's legal representative. In the case of administrative disallowance, in whole or in part, such notice shall contain a brief statement of the reason for such disallowance.
If MarAd fails to give written notice of allowance or disallowance of a claim in accordance with § 327.6 within sixty (60) calendar days following the date of the receipt of such claim by the proper person designated in § 327.5, such claim
(a) No seamen, having a claim specified in subsections (2) and (3) of section 1(a) of 50 U.S.C. App. 1291(a), their surviving dependents and beneficiaries, or their legal representatives shall institute a court action for the enforcement of such claim unless such claim shall have been prepared and filed in accordance with §§ 327.4 and 327.5 and shall have been administratively disallowed in accordance with § 327.6 or 327.7.
(b) This part prescribes rules and regulations pertaining to the filing of claims designated in § 327.3 and the administrative allowance, or disallowance (actual and presumed), of such claims, in whole or in part, filed by officers and members of crews (hereafter referred to as “seamen”) employed on vessels through the National Shipping Authority (NSA), Maritime Administration (MarAd), or successor organization.
(a) Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 30101(c) of the Admiralty Extension Act (AEA), administrative claims involving the extension of admiralty jurisdiction to cases of damage or injury on land caused by a Maritime Administration vessel on navigable waters must be presented in writing to the Maritime Administration in accordance with §§ 327.20 through 327.34 prior to institution of a court action thereon.
(b) A civil action against the United States for injury or damage done or consummated on land by a vessel on navigable waters may not be brought until the earlier occurrence of either the denial of the claim by the Maritime Administration or the presumptive denial of the claim which arises 6 months after the claim has been presented in writing to the Maritime Administration. 46 U.S.C. 30101(c)(2). Note that the 6 month period of review will not begin until a valid claim is filed pursuant to § 327.25.
(c) Proceedings against the United States pursuant to the requirements of the AEA and these regulations is the exclusive remedy available against the United States of America, acting by and through the Maritime Administration, with respect to such injuries and damages.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2) A claim for personal injury may be presented by the person injured.
(3) A claim based on death may be presented by the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate, or any other person legally entitled to assert such a claim under local law. The claimant's status must be stated in the claim.
(4) A claim for medical, hospital, or burial expenses may be presented by any person who by reason of family relationship has, in fact, incurred the expenses.
(b) A joint claim must be presented in the names of and signed by, the joint claimants, and the settlement will be made payable to the joint claimants.
(c) A claim may be presented by a duly authorized agent, legal representative or survivor, if it is presented in the name of the claimant. If the claim is not signed by the claimant, the agent, legal representative, or survivor shall indicate their title or legal capacity and provide evidence of their authority to present the claim.
(d) Where the same claimant has a claim for damage to or loss of property and a claim for personal injury or a claim based on death arising out of the same incident, they must be combined in one claim.
(a) The claims of an insured (subrogor) and an insurer (subrogee) for damages arising out of the same incident constitute a single claim.
(b) An insured (subrogor) and an insurer (subrogee) may file a claim jointly or separately. If the insurer has fully reimbursed the insured, payment will only be made to the insurer. If separate claims are filed, the settlement will be made payable to each claimant to the extent of that claimant's undisputed interest. If joint claims are filed, the settlement will be sent to the insurer.
(c) Each claimant shall include with a claim, a written disclosure concerning insurance coverage including:
(1) The names and addresses of all insurers;
(2) The kind and amount of insurance;
(3) The policy number;
(4) Whether a claim has been or will be presented to an insurer, and, if so, the amount of that claim; and whether the insurer has paid the claim in whole or in part, or has indicated payment will be made.
(d) Each subrogee shall substantiate an interest or right to file a claim by appropriate documentary evidence and shall support the claim as to liability and measure of damages in the same manner as required of any other claimant. Documentary evidence of payment to a subrogor does not constitute evidence of liability of the United States or conclusive evidence of the amount of damages. The Maritime Administration makes an independent determination on the issues of fact and law based upon the evidence of record.
(a)
(b)
(a) A valid claim will contain the following:
(1) Identification of the Maritime Administration as the agency whose act or omission gave rise to the claim;
(2) The full name and mailing address of the claimant. If this mailing address is not claimant's residence, the claimant shall also include residence address;
(3) The date, time, and place of the incident giving rise to the claim;
(4) The amount claimed, in a sum certain, supported by independent
(5) A detailed description of the incident giving rise to the claim and the factual basis upon which it is claimed the Maritime Administration is liable for the claim;
(6) A description of any property damage or loss, including the identity of the owner, if other than the claimant, as applicable;
(7) The nature and extent of the injury, as applicable;
(8) The full name, title, if any, and address of any witness to the incident and a brief statement of the witness' knowledge of the incident;
(9) A description of any insurance carried by the claimant or owner of the property and the status of any insurance claim arising from the incident; and
(10) An agreement by the claimant to accept the total amount claimed in full satisfaction and final settlement of the claim, lien or subrogation claim on the claimed amount, or any assignment of the claim.
(b) A claimant or duly authorized agent or legal representative must sign in ink a claim and any amendment to that claim. The claim shall include a statement that the information provided is true and correct to the best of the claimant's knowledge, information, and belief. If the person's signature does not include the first name, middle initial, if any, and surname, that information must be included in the claim. A married woman must sign her claim in her given name,
(a) The claimant shall present any evidence in the claimant's possession that supports the claim. This evidence shall include, if available, statements of witnesses, accident or casualty reports, photographs and drawings.
(b) Notwithstanding anything in the regulations in this subpart, the claimant shall provide such additional reasonable documents and evidence as requested by the Maritime Administration with respect to the claim. Failure to respond to reasonable requests for additional information and documentation can result in a determination that a valid claim has not been submitted.
The following evidence must be presented when appropriate in claims:
(a) Itemized medical, hospital, and burial bills.
(b) A written report by the attending physician including:
(1) The nature and extent of the injury and the treatment;
(2) The necessity and reasonableness of the various medical expenses incurred;
(3) Duration of time injuries prevented or limited employment;
(4) Past, present, and future limitations on employment;
(5) Duration and extent of pain and suffering and of any disability or physical disfigurement;
(6) A current prognosis;
(7) Any anticipated medical expenses;
(8) Any past medical history of the claimant relevant to the particular injury alleged; and
(9) If required by the Maritime Administration, an examination by an independent medical facility or physician to provide independent medical evidence against which to evaluate the written report of the claimant's physician. The Maritime Administration determines the need for this examination, makes mutually convenient arrangements for such an examination, and bears the costs thereof.
(c) All hospital records or other medical documents from either this injury or any relevant past injury.
(d) If the claimant is employed, a written statement by the claimant's employer certifying the claimant's:
(1) Age;
(2) Occupation;
(3) Hours of employment;
(4) Hourly rate of pay or weekly salary;
(5) Time lost from work as a result of the incident; and
(6) Claimant's actual period of employment, full-time or part-time, and any effect of the injury upon such employment to support claims for lost earnings.
(e) If the claimant is self-employed, written statements, or other evidence showing:
(1) The amount of earnings actually lost; and
(2) The Federal tax return if filed for the three previous years.
(f) If the claim arises out of injuries to a person providing services to the claimant, statement of the cost necessarily incurred to replace the services to which claimant is entitled under law.
The following evidence must be presented when appropriate:
(a) For each particular lost item, evidence of its value such as a bill of sale and a written appraisal, or two written appraisals, from separate disinterested dealers or brokers, market quotations, commercial catalogs, or other evidence of the price at which like property can be obtained in the community. The Maritime Administration may waive these requirements when circumstances warrant. The reasonable cost of any appraisal may be included as an element of damage if not deductible from any bill submitted to claimant.
(b) For each particular damaged item which can be economically repaired, evidence of cost of repairs such as a receipted bill and one estimate, or two estimates, from separate disinterested repairmen. The Maritime Administration may waive these requirements when circumstances warrant. The reasonable cost of any estimate may be included as an element of damage if not deductible from any repair bill submitted to claimant.
(c) For any claim for property damage which may result in payment in excess of $20,000.00, a survey or appraisal shall be performed as soon as practicable after the damage accrues, and, unless waived in writing, shall be performed jointly with a government representative.
(d) If the item is so severely damaged that it cannot be economically repaired or used, it shall be treated as a lost item.
(e) If a claim includes loss of earnings or use during repairs to the damaged property, the following must also be furnished and supported by competent evidence:
(1) The date the property was damaged;
(2) The name and location of the repair facility;
(3) The beginning and ending dates of repairs and an explanation of any delay between the date of damage and the beginning date;
(4) A complete description of all repairs performed, segregating any work performed for the owner's account and not attributable to the incident involved, and the costs thereof;
(5) The date and place the property was returned to service after completion of repairs, and an explanation, if applicable, of any delay;
(6) Whether or not a substitute for the damaged property was available. If a substitute was used by the claimant during the time of repair, an explanation of the necessity of using the substitute, how it was used, and for how long, and the costs involved. Any costs incurred that would have been similarly incurred by the claimant in using the damaged property must be identified;
(7) Whether or not during the course of undergoing repairs the property would have been used, and an explanation submitted showing the identity of the person who offered that use, the terms of the offer, time of prospective service, and rate of compensation; and
(8) If at the time of damage the property was under charter or hire, or was otherwise employed, or would have been employed, the claimant shall submit a statement of operating expenses that were, or would have been, incurred. This statement shall include wages and all bonuses which would have been paid, the value of fuel and the value of consumable stores, separately stated, which would have been consumed, and all other costs of operation which would have been incurred including, but not limited to, license and parking fees, personnel expenses, harbor fees, wharfage, dockage, shedding, stevedoring, towage, pilotage, inspection, tolls, lockage, anchorage and moorage, grain elevation, storage, and customs fees.
(f) For each item which is lost, actual or constructive, proof of ownership.
The total amount to which the claimant may be entitled is normally computed as follows:
(a) The total amount of the loss, damage, or personal injury suffered for which the United States is liable, less any payment the claimant has received from the following sources:
(1) The military member or civilian employee who caused the incident;
(2) The military member's or civilian employee's insurer; and
(3) Any joint tort-feasor or insurer.
(b) No deduction is generally made for any payment the claimant has received by way of voluntary contributions, such as donations of charitable organizations.
A civil suit must be filed within two years of the Accrual Date. No civil suit may be brought until the earlier occurrence of either the denial of a claim or the presumptive denial of the claim after 6 months from the date the claim was properly presented in writing to the Maritime Administration.
The statute of limitations for filing a civil action under 46 U.S.C. 30101(b) is not tolled by MarAd's administrative consideration of a claim.
The Maritime Administration shall give prompt notice in writing of the acceptance or denial of each claim in whole or in part, by mail to the last known address of, or by personal delivery to, the claimant or the claimant's legal representative. In the case of denial, such notice shall contain a brief statement of the reason for such a denial.
If the Maritime Administration fails to give written notice of acceptance or denial of a claim in accordance with § 327.30 within 6 months following the date of receipt of such a claim by the proper person designated in § 327.24(b), such claim shall be presumed to have been denied by the Maritime Administration.
No person, surviving dependent or beneficiary, or legal representative, having a claim specified under 46 U.S.C. 30101(a) against the Maritime Administration, shall institute a court action against the Maritime Administration unless an administrative claim has previously been properly presented and filed in accordance with § 327.22, § 327.23, and § 327.24, and such administrative claim has been subsequently denied in accordance with § 327.32 or § 327.33.
(a) Admiralty claims caused by United States owned and operated vessels on navigable waters or otherwise that are not covered under the Clarification Act (50 U.S.C. app. 1291(a)), the Admiralty Extension Act (46 U.S.C. 30101) or the Contracts Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601
(b) A civil action against the United States for admiralty claims caused by United States owned and operated vessels on navigable waters or otherwise that are not covered under the Clarification Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1291(a)), the Admiralty Extension Act (46 U.S.C. 30101) or the Contracts Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601
(c) Proceeding against the United States pursuant to the requirements this Part III is not a requirement for filing suit against the United States of America, acting by and through the Maritime Administration, with respect to such admiralty claims.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2) A claim for personal injury may be presented by the person injured.
(3) A claim based on death may be presented by the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate, or any other person legally entitled to assert such a claim under local law. The claimant's status must be stated in the claim.
(4) A claim for medical, hospital, or burial expenses may be presented by any person who by reason of family relationship has, in fact, incurred the expenses.
(5) A joint claim must be presented in the names of and signed by, the joint claimants, and the settlement must be made payable to the joint claimants.
(b) A claim may be presented by a duly authorized agent, legal representative or survivor, if it is presented in the name of the claimant. If the claim is not signed by the claimant, the agent, legal representative, or survivor shall indicate their title or legal capacity and provide evidence of their authority to present the claim.
(c) Where the same claimant has a claim for damage to or loss of property and a claim for personal injury or a claim based on death arising out of the
(a) The claims of an insured (subrogor) and an insurer (subrogee) for damages arising out of the same incident constitute a single claim.
(b) An insured (subrogor) and an insurer (subrogee) may file a claim jointly or separately. If the insurer has fully reimbursed the insured, payment will only be made to the insurer. If separate claims are filed, the settlement will be made payable to each claimant to the extent of that claimant's undisputed interest. If joint claims are filed, the settlement will be sent to the insurer.
(c) Each claimant shall include with a claim, a written disclosure concerning insurance coverage including:
(1) The names and addresses of all insurers;
(2) The kind and amount of insurance;
(3) The policy number; and
(4) Whether a claim has been or will be presented to an insurer, and, if so, the amount of that claim; and whether the insurer has paid the claim in whole or in part, or has indicated payment will be made.
(d) Each subrogee shall substantiate an interest or right to file a claim by appropriate documentary evidence and shall support the claim as to liability and measure of damages in the same manner as required of any other claimant. Documentary evidence of payment to a subrogor does not constitute evidence of liability of the United States or conclusive evidence of the amount of damages. The Maritime Administration makes an independent determination on the issues of fact and law based upon the evidence of record.
(a)
(b)
(a) A properly filed claim shall include the following, however, any of the following requirements may be waived by the Maritime Administration:
(1) Identification of the Maritime Administration as the agency whose act or omission gave rise to the claim;
(2) The full name and mailing address of the claimant. If this mailing address is not claimant's residence, the claimant shall also include residence address;
(3) The date, time, and place of the incident giving rise to the claim;
(4) The amount claimed, in a sum certain, supported by independent evidence of property damage or loss, personal injury, or death, as applicable together with supporting medical records and a HIPPA compliant medical waiver for each treating physician, hospital, or medical provider;
(5) A detailed description of the incident giving rise to the claim and the factual basis upon which it is claimed the United States is liable for the claim;
(6) A description of any property damage or loss, including the identity of the owner, if other than the claimant, as applicable;
(7) The nature and extent of the injury, as applicable;
(8) The full name, title, if any, and address of any witness to the incident and a brief statement of the witness' knowledge of the incident;
(9) A description of any insurance carried by the claimant or owner of the property and the status of any insurance claim arising from the incident; and
(10) An agreement by the claimant to accept the total amount claimed in full satisfaction and final settlement of the claim, lien, or subrogation claim on the claimed amount, or any assignment of the claim.
(b) A claimant or duly authorized agent or legal representative must sign in ink a claim and any amendment to that claim. The claim shall include a statement that the information provided is true and correct to the best of the claimant's knowledge, information, and belief. If the person's signature does not include the first name, middle initial, if any, and surname, that information must be included in the claim. A married woman must sign her claim in her given name,
(a) The claimant should present any evidence in the claimant's possession that supports the claim. This evidence shall include, if available, statements of witnesses, accident or casualty reports, photographs and drawings.
(b) Notwithstanding anything in the regulations in this subpart, the claimant shall provide such additional documents and evidence as requested by the Maritime Administration with respect to the claim. Failure to respond to reasonable requests for additional information and documentation can result in a determination that a proper claim has not been submitted.
The following evidence must be presented when appropriate in claims:
(a) Itemized medical, hospital, and burial bills.
(b) A written report by the attending physician including:
(1) The nature and extent of the injury and the treatment;
(2) The necessity and reasonableness of the various medical expenses incurred;
(3) Duration of time injuries prevented or limited employment;
(4) Past, present, and future limitations on employment;
(5) Duration and extent of pain and suffering and of any disability or physical disfigurement;
(6) A current prognosis;
(7) Any anticipated medical expenses;
(8) Any past medical history of the claimant relevant to the particular injury alleged; and
(9) At the request of the Maritime Administration, an examination by an independent medical facility or physician may be required to provide independent medical evidence against which to evaluate the written report of the claimant's physician. The Maritime Administration determines the need for this examination, makes mutually convenient arrangements for such an examination, and bears the costs thereof.
(c) All hospital records or other medical documents from either this injury or any relevant past injury.
(d) If the claimant is employed, a written statement by the claimant's employer certifying the claimant's:
(1) Age;
(2) Occupation;
(3) Hours of employment;
(4) Hourly rate of pay or weekly salary;
(5) Time lost from work as a result of the incident; and
(6) Claimant's actual period of employment, full-time or part-time, and any effect of the injury upon such employment to support claims for lost earnings.
(e) If the claimant is self-employed, written statements, or other evidence showing:
(1) The amount of earnings actually lost, and
(2) The Federal tax return, if filed, for the three previous years.
(f) If the claim arises out of injuries to a person providing services to the claimant, statement of the cost necessarily incurred to replace the services to which claimant is entitled under law.
The following evidence should be presented when appropriate:
(a) For each particular lost item, evidence of its value such as a bill of sale and a written appraisal, or two written appraisals, from separate disinterested dealers or brokers, market quotations, commercial catalogs, or other evidence of the price at which like property can be obtained in the community. The Maritime Administration may waive these requirements when circumstances warrant. The reasonable cost of any appraisal may be included as an element of damage if not deductible from any bill submitted to claimant.
(b) For each particular damaged item which can be economically repaired, evidence of cost of repairs such as a receipted bill and one estimate, or two estimates, from separate disinterested repairmen. The Maritime Administration may waive these requirements when circumstances warrant. The reasonable cost of any estimate may be included as an element of damage if not deductible from any repair bill submitted to claimant.
(c) For any claim which may result in payment in excess of $20,000.00, a survey or appraisal shall be performed as soon as practicable after the damage accrues, and, unless waived in writing, shall be performed jointly with a government representative.
(d) If the item is so severely damaged that it cannot be economically repaired or used, it shall be treated as a lost item.
(e) If a claim includes loss of earnings or use during repairs to the damaged property, the following must also be furnished and supported by competent evidence:
(1) The date the property was damaged;
(2) The name and location of the repair facility;
(3) The beginning and ending dates of repairs and an explanation of any delay between the date of damage and the beginning date;
(4) A complete description of all repairs performed, segregating any work performed for the owner's account and not attributable to the incident involved, and the costs thereof;
(5) The date and place the property was returned to service after completion of repairs, and an explanation, if applicable, of any delay;
(6) Whether or not a substitute for the damaged property was available. If a substitute was used by the claimant during the time of repair, an explanation of the necessity of using the substitute, how it was used, and for how long, and the costs involved. Any costs incurred that would have been similarly incurred by the claimant in using the damaged property must be identified;
(7) Whether or not during the course of undergoing repairs the property would have been used, and an explanation submitted showing the identity of the person who offered that use, the terms of the offer, time of prospective service, and rate of compensation; and
(8) If at the time of damage the property was under charter or hire, or was otherwise employed, or would have been employed, the claimant shall submit a statement of operating expenses that were, or would have been, incurred. This statement shall include wages and all bonuses which would have been paid, the value of fuel and the value of consumable stores, separately stated, which would have been consumed, and all other costs of operation which would have been incurred including, but not limited to, license and parking fees, personnel expenses, harbor fees, wharfage, dockage, shedding, stevedoring, towage, pilotage, inspection, tolls, lockage, anchorage and moorage, grain elevation, storage, and customs fees.
(f) For each item which is lost, actual or constructive, proof of ownership.
The total amount to which the claimant may be entitled is normally computed as follows:
(a) The total amount of the loss, damage, or personal injury suffered for which the United States is liable, less any payment the claimant has received from the following sources:
(1) The military member or civilian employee who caused the incident;
(2) The military member's or civilian employee's insurer; and
(3) Any joint tort-feasor or insurer.
(b) No deduction is generally made for any payment the claimant has received by way of voluntary contributions, such as donations of charitable organizations.
A civil suit must be filed within the statute of limitations of the specific admiralty claim. The start date for such statute of limitations determinations shall be the Accrual Date.
The statute of limitations for filing a civil action under 46 U.S.C. 30101(b) is not tolled by the Maritime Administration's administrative consideration of a claim.
The Maritime Administration shall give prompt notice in writing of the acceptance or denial of each claim in whole or in part, by mail to the last known address of, or by personal delivery to, the claimant or the claimant's legal representative. In the case of denial, such notice shall contain a brief statement of the reason for such a denial.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Reapportionment of tribal whiting allocation.
This document announces the reapportionment of 28,000 mt of Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation to the non-tribal commercial fishery allocations to ensure full utilization of the resource.
The reapportionment of whiting is effective from 1200 local time, October 4, 2012, until December 31, 2012, unless modified, superseded or rescinded. Comments will be accepted through November 14, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0041 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (if submitting comments via the Federal Rulemaking portal, enter “N/A” in the relevant required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Kevin C. Duffy (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-4743, fax: 206-526-6736 and email:
This document is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at
This document announces the reapportionment of 28,000 mt of Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation to the non-tribal commercial sectors on October 4, 2012. This action is authorized by regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which governs the groundfish fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California. Regulations at 50 CFR 660.131(h) contain provisions that allow the Regional Administrator to make Pacific whiting tribal allocation specified at § 660.50 that will not be harvested by the tribal fisheries available for harvest to other sectors of the trawl fishery. For 2012 the Washington Coast treaty tribes were allocated 48,556 mt of Pacific whiting. The best available information through October 2, 2012 indicated that less than 1,000 mt of the tribal allocation had been harvested. Approximately 28,000 mt of the 2012 tribal allocation are projected to go unharvested. Therefore, to ensure full utilization of the resource, NMFS reapportioned 28,000 mt to the shorebased IFQ, catcher/processor and mothership sectors in proportion to each sector's original allocation on October 4, 2012. Reapportioning this amount is not expected to limit tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of the year.
The revised Pacific whiting allocations for 2012 are: Tribal 20,556 mt, catcher/processor 55,584 mt; mothership 39,235 mt: and shorebased IFQ 68,662 mt. Emails sent directly to fishing businesses and postings on the Northwest Region's internet site were used to provide actual notice to the affected fishers.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As previously noted, actual notice of the reapportionment was provided to fishers. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS had insufficient time to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the information about the progress of the fishery needed to make this determination became available and the time at which fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish during the remainder of the fishing season. Reapportioning as quickly as possible was necessary to allow fishers access to the available fish prior to the onset of weather conditions that would make fishing unsafe. For the same reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
These actions are authorized by 50 CFR sections 660.55 (i), 660.60(d) and 660.131(h) and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to fully use the 2012 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 29, 2012, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2012. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., November 13, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0216, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62464, October 15, 2012).
As of October 23, 2012, NMFS has determined that approximately 300 metric tons of Pacific cod remain in the directed fishing allowance of the Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2012 TAC of Pacific cod apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 29, 2012.
The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
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 delay the opening of the directed Pacific cod fishery by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet and processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 23, 2012.
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.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow Pacific cod fishery by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until November 13, 2012.
This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. This action revises that NPRM by proposing to require repetitive operational tests and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which, in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the previous NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by December 14, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM published in the
Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), we have received comments from operators indicating a high level of difficulty performing the actions in the previous NPRM during maintenance operations. The new service information referenced in this supplemental NPRM addresses these issues.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. This service information describes procedures for repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include isolating the cause of any leakage and repairing the leak.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
American Airlines (AAL) asked that we withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). AAL recommended that a detailed review of the applicable system safety assessment (SSA) and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) be done for the fuel system on Model 757 airplanes. AAL stated that the fuel system, while similar in some design aspects to the fuel system on Model 737-400 airplanes on which the unsafe condition occurred, is sufficiently different that the probability of a similar failure is within the acceptable level of safety required for certification. AAL noted that there is a significant difference in the SSA and FMEA; specifically, all the wing fuel pump relays of the Model 757 airplane are powered by one leg of the three phase 115 volt alternating current (VAC) power provided to the respective pump, while the fuel cross-feel valve is powered by the battery direct current (DC) bus. AAL added that the wing fuel pump relays and fuel cross-feed valve are both supplied by DC bus power on Model 737 airplanes. Northwest Airlines (NWA) stated that we should explain what caused the failures that resulted in the previous NPRM, and noted that failure analysis could dictate a different action.
We do not agree with the request to withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), because, together with the manufacturer, we have evaluated this issue and determined it to be an important safety concern. Although the fuel system on Model 757 airplanes differs with respect to the engine fuel feed system design, service data of transport category airplanes indicates that multi-engine flameouts have generally resulted from a common cause, such as fuel mismanagement, crew action that inadvertently shut off the fuel supply to the engines, exposure to common environmental conditions, or engine deterioration on all engines of the same type. Successful in-flight restart of the engines is dependent on adequate fuel being supplied to the engines, solely through engine suction fuel feed. Deterioration of the fuel plumbing system can lead to line (vacuum) losses, reducing the engine fuel suction feed capability; therefore, directed maintenance is necessary to ensure this system is functioning correctly in order to maintain continued safe flight of the airplane. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
AAL asked that instead of issuing an NPRM, a new or revised CMR task be issued for incorporation into the maintenance program. AAL stated that, since there is no modification or terminating action for the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), the test should not be mandated. AAL also stated that the requirements in the previous NPRM should not be addressed as an AD. AAL added that the CMR would demonstrate proof of analysis, and provide a best-fit solution for that analysis; i.e., an effective and feasible safety task, and the correct interval to match the effectivity of the task.
We do not agree with the request to issue a new or revised CMR task. CMRs are developed by the Certification Maintenance Coordination Committee (CMCC) during the type certification process. The CMCC is made up of manufacturer representatives (typically maintenance, design, and safety engineering personnel), operator representatives designated by the Industry Steering Committee chairperson, FAA Aircraft Certification Office specialists, and the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) chairperson. CMRs developed during this process become a part of the certification basis of the airplane upon issuance of the type certificate. We do not have a process for convening the CMCC outside of the type certification process; based on this, the CMR is not an option for replacing this AD. Therefore, if the airworthiness limitation items (ALIs) were not in the maintenance program at the time of initial certification, an AD is required to make the ALI task a required action. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Continental Airlines (CAL) asked that the related testing language specified in paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) be changed. CAL stated that it should specify correcting discrepancies before further flight if the engine fails the operational test. CAL added that the corrective actions should be done in accordance with the procedures in the “Right (Left) Engine Fails the Suction Feed Test” procedure in the Boeing 757 Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) 28-22-00/101.
We agree with the request to include corrective actions in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)). Since the previous NPRM does not include corrective actions, we have changed paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM to specify doing all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4, 2012.
CAL and NWA asked that we extend the repetitive operational test interval required by paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). CAL stated that a re-evaluation of the proposed repetitive interval limit after doing the initial inspection should be done, since its service history has revealed no reported engine flameout events or related operational discrepancies. CAL asked that the repetitive interval be extended to repeating the inspection during a normal maintenance 2C-check or within 8,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first. NWA stated that the previous NPRM does not indicate how the initial and repetitive intervals were determined. NWA asked that the repetitive interval be changed to up to 10,000 flight hours to fit the mandated tests into its maintenance program C-check.
We do not agree with the requests that the compliance time be extended. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)), we considered the safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the specified actions. We have determined that the proposed compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the actions to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. However, affected operators may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to request an extension of the repetitive operational test interval under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM by submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
British Airways (BA), CAL, and United Airlines (UAL) asked that we allow using later revisions of the maintenance documents, because they
We do not agree with the request. Allowing later revisions of service documents in an AD is not allowed by the Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. Affected operators may, however, request approval to use a later revision of referenced service information as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
BA asked that we clarify that the engine fuel suction feed test procedure in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document is an option for performing the operational test in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). BA asked that we consider adding the engine fuel suction feed manifold leak-test procedure as an alternative procedure to performing the operational test specified in Section 28-22-00 of the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).
We agree to provide clarification. The manifold test (Task 28-22-00-710-801) is not equivalent to the operational test (Task 28-22-00-710-802) for the purposes of this proposed action. The positive internal fuel line pressure applied during the manifold test does not simulate the same conditions encountered during fuel suction feed (i.e., vacuum), and may mask a failure. Therefore, we have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
CAL suggested that the Boeing service manuals include a critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) warning identification statement to alert maintenance personnel of the importance of regulatory compliance, as well as the configuration control requirement. CAL did not include any justification for this request.
We agree that a CDCCL warning statement would serve as direct communication to maintenance personnel that there is an AD associated with certain maintenance actions, but do not find this additional measure necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
NWA stated that the cost estimate specified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) is too low, and asked that it be changed. NWA stated that the cost of fuel is not included in the cost estimate and should be included due to the high cost of fuel.
We acknowledge the commenter's request. Although fuel is used during the operational test, we have not received data on the amount of fuel used during the test. In addition, fuel costs vary among operators. Therefore, we do not have definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the fuel costs. In any case, we have determined that direct and incidental costs are still outweighed by the safety benefits of the proposed AD. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
BA asked that the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) refer to the Boeing 757 MPD, which contains the repetitive test interval of 1C-check in the MPD task (6,000 flight hours/3,000 flight cycles/18 months). BA added that it currently performs the test at 24-month C-check intervals, and has conducted the test on 71 airplanes since May 2006, with no failures identified.
We do not agree to refer to the Boeing 757 MPD in this supplemental NPRM. As stated previously, Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4, 2012, referred to as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions proposed in this supplemental NPRM. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
NWA asked that the last sentence in paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) be removed or clarified. NWA stated that the intent of that sentence is unclear, and is reiterated as follows: “Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative procedure or repeat test intervals will be allowed.” NWA added that it is standard practice that once an AD is issued, deviation procedures and intervals are not allowed unless approved by requesting an AMOC.
We agree with the commenter that including the subject sentence is redundant; however, that sentence is included in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)) merely as a reminder for operators of standard practices. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental NPRM.
This supplemental NPRM revises the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) by proposing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if necessary.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 673 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate 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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by December 14, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.
This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform an operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative procedures or repeat test intervals will be allowed.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Take notice that the Commission staff is issuing a memorandum setting forth certain minor revisions to the Commission's Natural Gas Pipeline regulations that may be appropriate to remove reporting requirements that may no longer serve their intended purpose. The memorandum was issued pursuant to the Nov. 8, 2011
The Staff Memorandum is being placed in the record in the above-referenced administrative docket. The Staff Memorandum will also be available on the Commission's Web site at
Comments on the Staff Memorandum should be filed by November 29, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
All filings in this docket are accessible on-line at
Christy Walsh, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-6523,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM
Written comments must be received on or before November 29, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0781 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
John Ungvarsky, (415) 972-3963, or by email at
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as “criteria pollutants”) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for PM
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM
Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006 24-hour PM
Within three years of the effective date of designations, states with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM
A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets the PM
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts (“Districts”) operate ambient monitoring stations throughout the State. CARB is the lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization
Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed these annual plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM
There was one PM
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we have reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM
EPA's evaluation of whether the Yuba City-Marysville PM
Table 1 shows the PM
In April 2007, EPA issued its PM
Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has
Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of attainment.
EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in several implementation rules.
EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings, including the 1997 PM
The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.
CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs “shall provide for attainment of the [NAAQS].” EPA has interpreted this requirement as not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.”
A component of the attainment plan specified under section 172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for “the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable” (RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration,
CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment areas must require “reasonable further progress.” The term “reasonable further progress” is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, by definition, the “reasonable further progress” provision under subpart 1 requires only such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment “[has] no meaning at that point.” General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].” This contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.”
It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006 PM
EPA is proposing to determine that the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of attainment is made final, the requirements for the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 PM
Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 would remain nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA determines that California has met the CAA requirements for redesignating the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area to attainment.
If the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the 2006 PM
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.
This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus, would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible
In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM
Written comments must be received on or before November 29, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0800 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
John Ungvarsky, (415) 972-3963, or by email at
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as “criteria pollutants”) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for PM
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM
Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006 24-hour PM
Within three years of the effective date of designations, states with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM
A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets the PM
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts (“Districts”) operate ambient monitoring stations throughout the State. CARB is the lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization
Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed these annual plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM
There was one PM
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we have reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM
EPA's evaluation of whether the Chico PM
Table 1 shows the PM
In April 2007, EPA issued its PM
Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of attainment.
EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in several implementation rules.
EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings, including the 1997 PM
The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.
CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs “shall provide for attainment of the [NAAQS].” EPA has interpreted this requirement as not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.”
A component of the attainment plan specified under section 172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for “the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable” (RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration,
CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment areas must require “reasonable further progress.” The term “reasonable further progress” is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, by definition, the “reasonable further progress” provision under subpart 1 requires only such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment “[has] no meaning at that point.” General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].” This contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.”
It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006 PM
EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of attainment is made final, the requirements for the Chico nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 PM
Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the Chico nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 would remain nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA determines that California has met the CAA requirements for redesignating the Chico nonattainment area to attainment.
If the Chico nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the 2006 PM
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.
This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus, would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
• 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Nogales nonattainment area in Arizona has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM
Written comments must be received on or before November 29, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0752 by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at
2. Email to
3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
John Ungvarsky, (415) 972-3963, or by email at
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Nogales nonattainment area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as “criteria pollutants”) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for PM
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM
Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006 24-hour PM
Within three years of the effective date of designations, states with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM
A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets the PM
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the governmental agency with the authority and responsibility under state law for collecting ambient air quality data within the Nogales nonattainment area. Annually, ADEQ submits monitoring network plans to EPA. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58. EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With respect to PM
There was one PM
For the purposes of this proposed action, we have reviewed the data for the most recent three-year period (2009-2011) for completeness, and we determined that the data collected by ADEQ meets the completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at the Nogales PM
EPA's evaluation of whether the Nogales PM
Table 1 shows the PM
In April 2007, EPA issued its PM
Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of attainment.
EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in several implementation rules.
EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings, including the 1997 PM
The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.
CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs “shall provide for attainment of the [NAAQS].” EPA has interpreted this requirement as not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.”
A component of the attainment plan specified under section 172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for “the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable” (RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration,
CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment areas must require “reasonable further
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].” This contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.”
It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006 PM
EPA is proposing to determine that the Nogales nonattainment area in Arizona has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of attainment is made final, the requirements for the Nogales nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 PM
Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 would remain nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA determines that Arizona has met the CAA requirements for redesignating the Nogales PM
If the Nogales nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the 2006 PM
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.
This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus, would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3)and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this noticeannounces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intent to seek reinstatement of the ARSAnimal Health National Program Assessment Survey, which seeks input on the impact of theAnimal Health National Research Program through the completion of an electronic evaluationform. This voluntary information collection will give the beneficiaries of ARS research theopportunity to provide input on the impact of the research conducted by ARS in the last nationalprogram cycle. This input will be used for planning the research agenda for the next 5-yearprogram cycle.
Comments on this notice must be received by December 31, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Dr. Cyril G. Gay, NationalProgram Leader, Agricultural Research Service, National Program Staff, Animal Production andProtection, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, GWCC, Building 4, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5148.Comments may be sent by phone to (301) 504-4786 or fax to (301) 504-4873. Submit electronic comments to
Dr. Cyril G. Gay at (301) 504-4786.
ARS National Program Assessments are conducted every 5 years, through the organization ofwebinars, conference calls and/or meetings. These input sessions allow ARS to periodicallyupdate the vision and rationale of each National Program and assess the relevancy, effectiveness,and responsiveness of ARS research. In addition, these input sessions facilitate the review andsimultaneously provide an opportunity for customers, stakeholders, and partners to assess theprogress made through the National Program and provide input for future modifications to theNational Program or the National Program's research agenda.
In the case of the ARS Animal Health National Program, the beneficiaries of the research are numerous, including the majority of the livestock and poultry industries, trade associations, Federal and State government agencies, and research partners in universities and the private sector. The electronic evaluation form will allow ARS to outreach to its many customers, partners, and stakeholders that are unable to attend the webinars, conference calls and/or meetings and also ensure an efficient means of obtaining the greatest amount of input on the impact and direction of the ARS Animal Health National Research Program.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for theproper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposedcollection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used;(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the input provided by a wide array ofcustomers, and; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those whorespond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology.Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will besummarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matterof public record.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's intention to request that the Office of Management and Budget approve a 3-year extension and revision of a currently approved information collection in support of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the Swine Contract Library program.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 31, 2012.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Catherine M. Grasso, Program Analyst, Policy and Litigation Division at (202) 720-7363 or
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is responsible for maintaining the Swine Contract Library, which is authorized by the Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) Act of 1999, and requires that certain packers submit hog procurement contracts and delivery estimates to GIPSA. The Swine Contract Library was reauthorized by Congress on October 5, 2006 through 2010. On September 28, 2010, the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010 reauthorized LMR for an additional 5 years.
Packers are required to report information for individual plants even in instanceswhen a given packer owned or used more than one plant. The information collectionburden estimate provided below is based on time and cost requirements at the plantlevel. Consequently, packers that report for more than one plant would bear a cost thatwould be a multiple of the per-plant estimates.
We understand from discussions with packers complying with current reportingrequirements that reporting packers have adapted pre-existing data and informationsystems to provide the required information.
There are two types of information collections required for the Swine ContractLibrary.
The first information collection requirement consists of submitting examplecontracts. Initially, a packer submits example contracts currently in effect or available foreach swine processing plant that is subject to the regulations. Subsequently, a packersubmits example contracts for any offered, new, or amended contracts that vary frompreviously submitted contracts in regard to the base price determination, the applicationof a ledger or accrual account, carcass merit premium and discount schedules (includingthe determination of the lean percent or other merits of the carcass that is used todetermine the amount of the premiums and discounts and how those premiums anddiscounts are applied), or the use and amount of noncarcass merit premiums or discounts.The initial submission of example contracts requires more time than subsequent filings ofnew contracts or changes, as packers initially need to review all their contracts to identifythe unique types that need to be represented by an example submitted to GIPSA.
Thereafter, subsequent filings require a minimal amount of effort on the part ofpackers, as only example contracts that represent a new or different type need to be filedwith GIPSA. P&SP-342 must accompany each contract submission to identify thecontract, the plan for which the contract is valid, and the contact person.
The required submission of contracts includes both written and verbal contracts.Packers have added documentation of verbal contracts to their existing recordkeepingsystems in order to comply with this requirement. The optional form that is available, butnot required, for reporting verbal contracts is used by 10 packers; 2 packers that relyheavily on verbal contracts use this optional form exclusively to document their verbalcontracts. Of 1,022 contracts files on file, the optional verbal contract sheet was used todocument 245 verbal contracts.
The second information collection requirement is a monthly filing of summaryinformation on form P&SP 341, Monthly Report: Estimates of Swine To Be DeliveredUnder Contract. The form for the monthly filing is simple and brief. Fornew packers required to start reporting, this data should be available in the packers'existing record system. Electronic submission is encouraged and we provide thenecessary information on procedures to submit data to GIPSA electronically. In 2011,50 percent of monthly reports were submitted through the Web site, with the remaining50 percent submitted by facsimile or mail.
The estimates of time requirements used for the burden estimates below weredeveloped in consultation with GIPSA personnel knowledgeable of the industry'srecordkeeping practices. The estimates also reflect our experience in assembling largeamount of data during the course of numerous investigations involving use of datacollected from the industry. Estimates of time requirements and hourly wage costs fordeveloping electronic recordkeeping and reporting systems are based on our experience indeveloping similar systems in consultation with our automated information systems staff.
Thereafter, 64.5 total hours annually for all subsequent filing of examples foroffered contracts and for amended existing or available contracts by all plants combines,based on an average of 6 offered or amended existing or available contracts annually.Calculated as follows: 0.25 hours per contract × 6 example contracts per plant × 43 plants= 64.5 hours.
Total Cost: Initial filing $138 for all plants combined. Calculated as follows: 5.5hours × $25 per hour = $138.
Thereafter, $1,613 annually for all plants combined for submission of subsequentfilings. Calculated as follows: 64.5 hours × $25 per hour = $1,613.
516 hours for all plants combined provided all plants use electronic compiling,preparation, and submission. Calculated as follows: 1 hour per response × 43 plants × 12responses per plant = 516 hours.
Total Cost: $25,800 annually for all plants combined provided all use manualsubmission. Calculated as follows: 1,032 × $25 per hour = $25,800.
$12,900 annually for all plants combined provided all were to completely utilizeelectronic preparation and submission. Calculated as follows: 516 hours × $25 per hour =$12,900.
Additional $180 one-time set-up cost provided all plants newly subject to theRegulations were to completely utilize electronic systems for preparation and submission.
Calculated as follows: 1 hour build spreadsheet/database + 2 hours develop electronicinterface = 3 hours. 3 hours total development × $60 per hour × 1 new plant = $180.
The Paperwork Reduction Act also requires GIPSA to measure the recordkeepingburden. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act and its existing regulations, each packer isrequired to maintain and make available upon request any records necessary toverify information on all transactions between the packer and producers from whom thepacker obtains swine for slaughter. Records that packers are required to maintain underexisting regulations would meet the requirements for verifying the accuracy ofinformation required to be reported for the Swine Contract Library. These recordsinclude original contracts, agreements, receipts, schedules, and other records associatedwith any transaction related to the purchase, pricing, and delivery of swine for slaughterunder the terms of marketing contracts. Additional annual costs of maintaining recordswould be nominal since packers are required to store and maintain such records as amatter of normal business practice and in conformity with existing regulations.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) and itsimplementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)), we specifically request comment to:
(a) Evaluate the proposed collection of information is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will havepractical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposedcollection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptionsused;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to becollected; and
(d) Minimize the burden on the collection of information on those who areto respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, orother technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for theOffice of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter ofpublic record.
44 U.S.C. 3506 and 5 CFR 1320.8.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) administers rural utilities programs, including the Telecommunications Program. RUS announces the depreciation rates for telecommunications plant for the period ending December 31, 2011.
These rates are effective immediately and will remain in effect until rates are available for the period ending December 31, 2012.
Jonathan P. Claffey, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, STOP
In 7 CFR part 1737, Pre-Loan Policies and Procedures Common to Insured and Guaranteed Telecommunications Loans, § 1737.70(e) explains the depreciation rates that are used by RUS in its feasibility studies. § 1737.70(e)(2) refers to median depreciation rates published by RUS for all borrowers. The following chart provides those rates, compiled by RUS, for the reporting period ending December 31, 2011:
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).
These forms will also reduce client burden through forms' flexibility and technology. The CS also seeks increased forms flexibility to ensure that CS asks and captures only the specific information needed for a particular service/event, thereby continuing to reduce client burdens as CS utilizes pre-populated information for clients who have previously registered with CS. As a client request specific CS services, a set of questions will be presented to determine how CS will proceed to give the client the best export outcome.
This revision to produce a customized form for each CS client, and will cover all aspects of an international client's life-cycle with CS, involves merging with other information collections: OMB Control Nos: 0625-0065, 0625-0130, 0625-0151, 0625-0215, 0625-0220, 0625-0228, 0625-0143, and 0625-0238. These collections include all client intake, events/activities and export success forms. The set of questions used to generate the customized forms have been approved under the aforementioned information collections. Upon OMB approval, these information collections will be discontinued.
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 Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-5167 or via the Internet at
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 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. The respondents 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.
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, OMB Desk Officer, Jasmeet Seehra, FAX Number (202) 395-5167, or
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Correction.
On October 16, 2012, a notice was published in the
Under the heading
`We plan to add a box for “Change in Operational Status” to the MA-3000 for 2012. This change does not affect burden because the information asked is readily available by the respondents or not applicable to those companies without an operational status change.'
All other information in the notice is correct and remains unchanged.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 7106, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has determined that a request for a new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) for this NSR is September 1, 2011, through August 31, 2012.
Dustin Ross, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: 202-482-0747.
The antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC published in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Deyan Aquatic 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), Deyan Aquatic submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which Deyan Aquatic 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), the Department finds that Deyan Aquatic's request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of an NSR for the shipment of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC produced and exported by Deyan Aquatic.
The POR for this NSR is September 1, 2011, through August 31, 2012.
It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economy countries, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 Deyan Aquatic in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Deyan Aquatic certified that it produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for this NSR request, we will apply the bonding privilege to Deyan Aquatic only for subject merchandise which Deyan Aquatic both produced and exported.
To assist in its analysis of the
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 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the
Lori Apodaca or Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4551 or (202) 482-2769, respectively.
We published the
The POR is June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15
All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in these reviews are addressed in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from the People's Republic of China,” dated October 19, 2012 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which the Department responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit in room 7046 in the main Commerce Department building, and is also accessible on the Web at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the following changes to our
• The normal value that was compared to U.S. price was calculated using certain factors of production that were reported on a per-kilogram basis while U.S. price was reported on a per-piece basis. In the final results, we corrected the dumping analysis to accurately reflect GGB's reported consumption of its inputs on a per-piece basis.
• We used the incorrect variable name for the entered value of the TRBs sold by GGB during the POR. In the final results, we corrected the variable name in the margin program to accurately reflect the reported variable name for entered value and corrected the assessment rate programming language.
• GGB reported a steel scrap by-product. We intended to grant an offset for this byproduct but made a clerical error in the
• We have recalculated surrogate financial ratios using different financial statements from those used in the
No party has contested the
Since the
The Department found in the
The Department has determined that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for GGB for the period June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011:
The Department will disclose the calculations performed for these final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. Because GGB's weighted-average dumping margin is above
Consistent with Departmental practice in new shipper reviews, the Department has established a combination cash deposit rate for GGB as described below. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this NSR for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”): (1) For subject merchandise exported and produced by GGB, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by GGB but not produced by GGB, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 92.84 percent; (3) for subject merchandise produced by GGB but not exported by GGB, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter; (4) for other previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (5) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 92.84 percent; and (6) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (the PRC).
Brian Davis or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-7924 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
On March 29, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Donghua Fine Chemical certified that (1) it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI) (
Based on information on the record and in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we find that the request meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation of a new shipper review.
However, the Department has concerns with certain other information contained within the entry data received from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Due to the business proprietary nature of this information, please refer to the NSR Initiation Checklist for further discussion. The Department intends to address this issue after initiation of the new shipper review. If the Department subsequently determines, based on information collected, that a new shipper review for Donghua Fine Chemical is not warranted, the Department expects to rescind the review or apply facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act, as appropriate.
We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review no later than 180 days after the date on which this review is initiated, and the final results within 90 days after the date on which we issue the preliminary results.
We will instruct 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 certain entries of the subject merchandise exported and produced by Donghua Fine Chemical in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Donghua Fine Chemical certified that it exports the subject merchandise, the sale of which forms the basis for its new shipper review request, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for entries of subject merchandise which Donghua Fine Chemical exported.
Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and this notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 31, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published a notice of preliminary rescission of the new shipper review (“NSR”) of D'Ambros María de los Angeles and D'Ambros María Daniela SH, an Argentine partnership doing business as Apícola Danangie (“Danangie”), under the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period of December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011.
Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8029 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
We published the notice of preliminary rescission of this new shipper review on July 31, 2012.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g), the period of review (“POR”) for this NSR is the annual period of December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011.
The merchandise covered by the order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.
The NSR provisions of the Department's regulations require that the entity making a request for an NSR must document and certify, among other things: (1) The date on which subject merchandise of the exporter or producer making the request was first entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot establish the date of first entry, the date on which the exporter or producer first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of that and subsequent shipments; and (3) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
Because we find Danagie did not have a qualifying, first entry during the new shipper period, we find that there is no qualifying sale to review. As such, we are rescinding this NSR. Accordingly, the all-others antidumping duty margin of 30.24 percent still applies for shipments of honey exported by Danangie for the period December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011. We note that the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina on September 21, 2012, with revocation effective August 2, 2012.
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are rescinding this NSR, the all others rate of 30.24 percent applies to all exports of honey exported by Danangie. The assessment rate for Danangie's shipments, however, could change as the Department is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina covering Danangie and the period of December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011. Thus, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend entries during the period December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011, of subject merchandise exported by Danangie until CBP receives instructions relating to the administrative review of the honey antidumping order covering the period December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011.
As noted above, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina effective August 2, 2012.
This notice serves as a reminder to the importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The NSR and rescission notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, as amended and 19 CFR 351.214(f).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Kristen Johnson or Robert Copyak AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793or (202) 482-2209, respectively.
On May 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Between June and October 2012, numerous review requests were withdrawn.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department initiated the instant review on July 10, 2012.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 30, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice in the
Daniel Calhoun, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1439.
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Trade Representative instructed the Department to implement its determinations under section 129 of the URAA regarding the antidumping duty investigation on CWP from the PRC, which renders them not inconsistent with the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) dispute settlement findings in
Subsequent to publication, we identified a clerical error in
All recalculated countervailing duty rates and antidumping duty cash deposit rates as published in
With respect to this proceeding, the cash deposit rate for the above-named exporter/producer combination has not been superseded by intervening administrative reviews. Therefore, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties at the appropriate rate for the exporter/producer combination specified above, for entries of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after August 21, 2012.
This correction of the notice of implementation of this section 129 determination is published in accordance with section 129(c)(2)(A) of the URAA.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice of prospective grant of exclusive patent license.
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), U.S. Department of Commerce, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license in the United States of America, its territories, possessions and commonwealths, to NIST's interest in the invention embodied in U.S. Patent Application No. 61/625,511 titled “UV-Assisted Alcohol Sensing with Zinc Oxide Functionalized Gallium Nitride Nanowires,” NIST Docket No. 12-020 to the University of Maryland, having a place of business at 0133 Cole Student Activities Building, College Park MD 20742-1001. The grant of the license would be for all fields of use.
Terry Lynch, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Partnerships Office, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, (301) 975-2691,
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen days from the date of this published Notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument which establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
U.S. Patent Application No. 61/625,511 is co-owned by the U.S. government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce, George Washington University and the University of Maryland. Alcohol sensors using gallium nitride (GaN) nanowires (NWs) functionalized with zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles have been demonstrated. These sensors operate at room temperature, are fully recoverable and demonstrate a response and recovery time of the order of 100 s. The sensing is assisted by UV light within the 215 nm-400 nm band and with the intensity of 375 nW/cm2 measured at 365 nm. The ability to functionalize an inactive nanowire surface, with analyte specific active metal oxide nanoparticles makes this sensor technique suitable for fabricating multi-analyte sensor arrays.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Riverbanks Zoo and Garden, P.O. Box 1060, Columbia, South Carolina 29202 [Jennifer Rawlings, Responsible Party], has applied in due form for a permit to hold shortnose sturgeon (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before November 29, 2012.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Colette Cairns or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Riverbanks Zoo and Garden is requesting a permit to continue enhancement activities previously authorized under Permit No. 1589. Activities would include the care and maintenance of two captive-bred, non-releasable shortnose sturgeon. The display would be used to increase public awareness of the shortnose sturgeon and its status by educating the public on shortnose sturgeon life history and the reasons for the species decline. The proposed project to display endangered cultured shortnose sturgeon responds directly to a recommendation from the NMFS recovery plan outline for this species. The permit would not authorize any takes from the wild, nor would it authorize any release of captive sturgeon into the wild. The permit is requested for a duration of five years.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Commerce.
Notice of solicitation for members of the NOAA Science Advisory Board.
NOAA is soliciting nominations for members of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB is the only Federal Advisory Committee with the responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator on long- and short-range strategies for research, education, and application of science to resource management and environmental assessment and prediction. The SAB consists of 15 members reflecting the full breadth of NOAA's areas of responsibility and assists NOAA in maintaining a complete and accurate understanding of scientific issues critical to the agency's missions.
Members will be appointed for three-year terms, renewable once, and serve at the discretion of the Under Secretary. If a member resigns before the end of his or her first term, the vacancy appointment shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term, and shall be renewable twice if the unexpired term is less than one year.
Members will be appointed as special government employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Members are reimbursed for actual and reasonable travel and per diem expenses incurred in performing such duties but will not be reimbursed for their time.
As a Federal Advisory Committee the Board's membership is required to be balanced in terms of viewpoints represented and the functions to be performed as well as the interests of geographic regions of the country and the diverse sectors of U.S. society.
The SAB meets in person three times each year, exclusive of teleconferences or subcommittee, task force, and working group meetings. Board members must be willing to serve as liaisons to SAB working groups and/or participate in periodic reviews of the NOAA Cooperative Institutes and overarching reviews of NOAA's research enterprise.
Nominations may be made by individuals themselves or by a third party. Nominations by a third party should provide: (1) The nominee's full name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information; (2) the nominee's area(s) of expertise; and (3) a short description of his/her qualifications relative to the kinds of advice being solicited. Inclusion of a (maximum length four [4] pages) resume or curriculum vitae is recommended, but not required.
An application is required to be considered for Board membership, whether nominated by a third party or self-nominated. To apply, submit a current resume (maximum length four [4] pages) as indicated in the
Nominations should be sent to the address specified and must be received by November 29, 2012.
Nominations and applications should be submitted electronically to
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1156, Fax: 301-713-1459, Email:
Individuals with expertise are sought in the specific areas of satellites and ground systems, high-performance computing and data systems, operational oceanography and/or meteorology, social sciences, and NOAA-relevant science and technology as applied in the Great Lakes region. Individuals with expertise in other areas relevant to NOAA goals and objectives are also welcome.
SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that NOAA science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to NOAA's Mission Goals:
• Climate Adaptation and Mitigation.
• Weather-Ready Nation.
• Healthy Oceans.
• Resilient Coastal Communities and Economies.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of Consumer Outreach.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a proposed collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before December 31, 2012.
You may submit comments, regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Nisha Smalls, Consumer Education & Outreach Specialist, 202-418-5000,
Under the PRA, federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they collect or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) as “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting * * * facts or opinions by or for any agency, regardless of form or format [from] ten or more persons.” An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
In accordance with 7 U.S.C. 26, the CFTC is posing survey questions to the public. Questions included in the survey will inquire as to how often the respondents would like to receive content from CFTC, the format in which the respondents would like to receive information, and the topics the information should cover.
The Office of Consumer Outreach develops campaigns to change consumer behaviors, so that consumers can better avoid fraud as defined under the Commodities Exchange Act. The first campaign from the Office of Consumer Outreach involves utilizing government and non-profit agency distribution methods to provide anti-fraud information to consumers. This survey will assist the Office of Consumer Outreach in determining how the government and non-profit agencies would like to receive the anti-fraud information from the CFTC. The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be 10 minutes per response. This estimate includes the time to prepare the written or electronic
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, and in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law, a Defense Health Board (DHB) meeting is announced.
Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel, 2800 South Potomac Avenue, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
Ms. Christine Bader, Director, Defense Health Board, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-3317,
Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration are available at the DHB Web site,
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the DHB meeting on November 27, 2012 will be open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. On November 28, 2012, the Board will be conducting an administrative working session.
Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see
If the written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.
The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the Chairperson and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB Chairperson, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations: Due to the small size and particular location of this existing project and the close coordination with state and federal agencies during the preparation of the application, the 60-day timeframe in 18 CFR 4.34(b) is shortened. Instead, motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations will be due 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from the date of this notice.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. The application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The proposed Crescent Street Dam Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) An existing 28-foot-high, 127-foot-long concrete and masonry dam with a 98-foot-long spillway topped with a 3-foot-high bascule gate; (2) an existing 4.5-acre impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 541.3 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; (3) existing generation facilities on the right side of the dam that include: (a) an intake structure equipped with a 7-foot-high, 7-foot-wide head gate and a 14-foot-high, 17.5-feet-wide trashrack with 1.25-inch clear bar spacing; (b) a 25-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter penstock; (c) a 44-foot-long, 28-foot-wide powerhouse containing a 250 kilowatt (kW) turbine generating unit; (d) a 7-foot-diameter, 47-foot-long bypass outlet conduit equipped with a 7-foot-high, 7-foot-wide gate; (e) a 16-foot-wide, 4-foot-deep, 200-foot-long tailrace; and (f) three existing 180-foot-long, 600 volt transmission lines; (4) existing generation facilities on the left side of the dam that include: (a) an 18-foot-long weir equipped with a 6-foot-high, 6-foot-wide slide gate and a 12-foot-high, 13.5-foot-wide trashrack with ¾-inch clear bar spacing; (b) a 55-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter penstock; (c) a 37-foot-long, 37-foot-wide powerhouse containing a 198 kW turbine generating unit; (d) a 14-foot-wide, 9-foot-deep, 100-foot-long tailrace; and (e) six 900-foot-long, 600 volt transmission lines; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated average annual generation of 1,729.2 megawatt-hours. The applicant proposes to construct downstream and upstream fish passage facilities, a plunge pool, and upstream eel passage facility if required by fish and wildlife agencies, and operate the project in a run-of-river mode.
m. Due to the project works already existing and the limited scope of proposed modifications to the project site described above, the applicant's close coordination with federal and state agencies during the preparation of the application, and agency recommended preliminary terms and conditions, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the exemption process. Based on a review of the application, resource agency consultation letters, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in the EA have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, which included a public meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project construction and operation on aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, recreation and land use, aesthetic, and cultural and historic resources.
n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMPETING
p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according to the following procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the following meetings:
Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:
For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-8529, or
Take notice that on October 18, 2012, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, pursuant to the authority vested by sections 301(b), 302(a), 402(e), 641, 642, 643, and 644, of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and by Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00 (December 6, 2001) and 00-001.00D (January 22, 2010), confirmed, approved, and placed in effect on an interim basis in Rate Order SWPA-64, Southwestern Power Administration annual rate for the sale of power and energy from the Willis Project to the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 11, 2012, Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P. (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, pursuant to the blanket certificate issued to Gulf South's predecessor in Docket No. CP82-430-000,
The Bistineau Storage Facility is a converted gas producing reservoir and many of the original producing wells were converted to storage service by Gulf South in the late 1960's. Some of the existing well bores are over 50 years old and have begun to deteriorate either mechanically or operationally. Gulf South proposed to construct a new horizontal well to replace one or more of the existing vertical wells, which will be Gulf South D-21H drilled near the end of the D-lateral in Bienville Parish, Louisiana. Gulf South also proposes to construct approximately 0.06 miles of associated 8-inch lateral and appurtenant facilities. The proposed facilities will be used as an injection and withdrawal well. The project will not alter the Bistineau Storage Facility's total inventory, working gas/cushion gas ratio, reservoir pressure, reservoir or buffer boundaries, or certificated capacities, including injection and withdrawal capacity. The estimated cost of the proposed project is $3,500,000.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P., 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, (713) 479-8033, or email at
This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the interregional transmission planning activities of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP):
The above-referenced meeting will be a teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. ER09-35-001,
For more information, contact Luciano Lima, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 288-6738 or
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed marketing criteria.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western), a Federal power marketing agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), is seeking comments on proposed marketing criteria for allocating the Federal power from the Boulder Canyon Project (BCP). The Conformed Power Marketing Criteria or Regulations for the Boulder Canyon Project (2012 Conformed Criteria) published in the
Entities interested in commenting on proposed marketing criteria must submit written comments to Western's Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office at the address below. Western will accept written comments received on or before January 11, 2013. Western reserves the right to not consider any comments received after this date.
Western will hold three public information forums on the proposed marketing criteria. The dates for the public information forums are:
1. November 27, 2012, 1 p.m., PST, Las Vegas, Nevada.
2. November 28, 2012, 1 p.m., MST, Phoenix, Arizona.
3. November 29, 2012, 10 a.m., PST, Ontario, California.
Following the public information forums, Western will hold three public comment forums. The dates for the public comment forums are:
1. December 18, 2012, 1 p.m., PST, Las Vegas, Nevada.
2. December 19, 2012, 10 a.m., PST, Ontario, California.
3. December 20, 2012, 10 a.m., MST, Phoenix, Arizona.
Written comments regarding these proposed marketing criteria should be sent to: Mr. Darrick Moe, Desert Southwest Regional Manager, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457. Comments may also be faxed to (602) 605-2490 or emailed to
The public information and public comment forums will be held at: The New Las Vegas Tropicana, 3801 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada; Fiesta Resort Conference Center, 2100 S. Priest Drive, Tempe, Arizona; DoubleTree Ontario Airport, 222 N. Vineyard, Ontario, California.
Mr. Mike Simonton, Public Utilities Specialist, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone number (602) 605-2675, email
The BCP was authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (Act) (43 U.S.C. 617). Under Section 5 of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior marketed the capacity and energy from the BCP under electric service contracts effective through May 31, 1987. In 1977 the power marketing functions of the Secretary of Interior were transferred to Western by Section 302 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). Thereafter, on December 28, 1984, Western published the Conformed General Consolidated Criteria or Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects (1984 Conformed Criteria) (49 FR 50582) to implement applicable provisions of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619) for the marketing of BCP power through September 30, 2017.
On December 20, 2011, Congress enacted the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-72) (HPAA), which provides direction and guidance in marketing BCP power after the existing contracts expire September 30, 2017. On June 14, 2012, Western published the 2012 Conformed Criteria (77 FR 35671) to implement applicable provisions of the HPAA for the marketing of BCP power from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2067. The 2012 Conformed Criteria formally established a resource pool defined as “Schedule D” to be allocated to new allottees. In accordance with the HPAA, Western allocated portions of Schedule D to the Arizona Power Authority (APA) and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC), respectively, as described in the June 14, 2012, FRN. Of the remaining portions of Schedule D, Western is to allocate 11,510 kilowatts (kW) of contingent capacity and associated firm energy to new allottees within the State of California, and 69,170 kW of contingent capacity and associated firm energy to new allottees within the Boulder City Area marketing area.
Western proposes to apply the following general marketing criteria to applicants seeking an allocation of power from the Post-2017 Resource Pool. This includes all prescribed portions of Schedule D power to be allocated by Western as described above.
A. Allocations of power will be made in amounts determined solely by Western in exercise of its discretion under Reclamation Law, including the HPAA.
B. An allottee may purchase power only upon the execution of an electric service contract and satisfaction of all conditions stated within that contract.
C. Eligible applicants, except Native American tribes, must be ready, willing, and able to receive and distribute or use power from Western. Ready, willing, and able means the eligible applicant has the facilities needed for the receipt of power or has made the necessary arrangements for transmission and/or distribution service, and its power supply contracts with third parties permit the delivery of Western's power. Eligible applicants must have the necessary arrangements for transmission and/or distribution service in place by October 1, 2016.
D. An eligible Native American applicant must be an Indian tribe as defined in the Indian Self Determination Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. 450b, as amended.
E. In determining allocations, Western will give priority consideration in the following order to entities satisfying these marketing criteria:
1. Federally recognized Native American tribes.
2. Municipal corporations and political subdivisions including irrigation or other districts, municipalities, and other governmental organizations; that have electric utility status by April 1, 2014. “Electric utility status” means that the entity has responsibility to meet load growth, has a distribution system, and is ready, willing, and able to purchase Federal power from Western on a wholesale basis.
3. Electric cooperatives and public utilities other than electric utilities that are recognized as utilities by their applicable legal authorities, are nonprofit in nature, have electrical facilities, and are independently governed and financed.
4. Other eligible applicants.
F. In determining allocations, Western will consider existing Federal power resource allocations of the applicants.
G. Western will base allocations to Native American tribes on actual loads experienced in the most recent calendar year. Western may use estimated load values if actual load data is not available. Western will evaluate and may adjust inconsistent estimates during the allocation process. Western is available to assist tribes in developing load estimates.
H. Western will base allocations to eligible applicants on the actual loads experienced in the most recent calendar year and will apply current marketing criteria to these loads.
I. The minimum allocation will be 1,000 kW. Applicants will be allowed to aggregate their loads to meet minimum requirements provided Western is able to schedule power deliveries in quantities of 1,000 kW or greater to the aggregated group. Western will consider making allocations under the 1,000 kW minimum conditioned upon an applicant's ability to aggregate to 1,000 kW or greater for scheduling purposes prior to final allocation determinations.
J. Applicants seeking an allocation as an aggregated group must demonstrate to Western's satisfaction the existence of a contractual aggregation arrangement prior to final allocation determinations. Each member of an aggregated group must meet all eligibility requirements.
K. Contractors must execute electric service contracts within six months of receiving a contract offer from Western, unless Western agrees otherwise in writing.
L. If unanticipated obstacles to the delivery of electric service to a Native American tribe arise, Western retains the right to provide the economic benefit of the resource directly to the tribe.
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
In accordance with the DOE National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined that these actions fit within a class of action B4.1 Contracts, policies, and marketing and allocation plans for electric power, in Appendix B to Subpart D to Part 1021—Categorical Exclusions Applicable to Specific Agency Actions.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 29, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket identification (ID) number (No.) EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0966, to (1) EPA online using
William Wooge, (7203M), Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8476; fax number: (202) 564-8482; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47640), EPA sought comments on this renewal pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), and the ICR submitted to OMB includes EPA's responses to the four comments that were received. Any additional comments on the revised ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0966, which is available online at
This ICR addresses the information collection activities for the initial list of chemicals screened under Tier 1 of the EDSP, and covers the full range of information collection activities associated with the issuance of and response to Tier 1 EDSP orders issued by EPA. The initial list was established in 2009, and consists of 67 pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) and pesticide inerts. As the renewal of an ongoing information collection activity approved under the PRA, this ICR addresses the paperwork burden associated with the continuation of the activities over the next three years. As such, the paperwork burdens are adjusted to reflect the planned progression associated with the information collection activities covered by the ICR. In addition, EPA has restructured the ICR to incorporate a presentation of the activities and related burden in a way that would match what is used in the ICR submission system.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 29, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0858 to (1) EPA online using
Pamela Myrick, Deputy Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 7408-M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.10. On January 13, 2012 (77 FR 2058), EPA sought comments on this proposed information collection pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one supportive comment during the comment period. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0858, which is available for online viewing at
EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in
The Partner of the Year Awards will be an annual event, with recognition for DfE stakeholder organizations from five broad categories: (1) Formulators/product manufacturers (of both consumer and institutional/industrial (I/I) products), (2) purchasers and distributors, (3) retailers, (4) influencers (e.g., non-governmental organizations, including environmental and health advocates, trade associations, academia, sports teams, and others), and (5) innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers, technology developers, and others). Within these categories and based on the criteria, DfE may elect to give additional awards in the subcategories of “small business” and “sustained excellence.” This information collection activity addresses the reporting burden associated with making application to EPA for recognition in the Partner of the Year Awards program.
Responses to this information collection are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0824, online at
Kaytrue Ting, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General
The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club seeking to compel the Administrator to take final action under sections 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2) and (3), on a SIP submission made by Oklahoma on July 16, 2010, regarding Excess Emissions Reporting Requirements. The proposed consent decree requires EPA to sign for publication in the
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0824) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the membership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Performance Review Board for 2012.
Karen D. Higginbotham, Director, Executive Resources Division, 3606A, Office of Human Resources, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,(202) 564-7287.
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management,
Members of the 2012 EPA Performance Review Board are:
This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of the United States has received an application for a $14 million loan guarantee to support the export of approximately $13 million worth of gas turbine generator set and services to Russia. The U.S. exports will enable the Russian company to produce approximately 475,000 cubic meters of medium density fiberboard per year. Available information indicates that the majority of this new medium density fiberboard production will be sold in Russia with the remainder sold in the Ukraine and other CIS countries. Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by email to
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, November 1, 2012 AT 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)
This Meeting Will Be Open to the Public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is submitting the information collection entitled “Community Support Requirements” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension of the OMB control number 2590-0005 which is due to expire on October 31, 2012.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before November 29, 2012.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202)-395-6974, Email address:
•
•
•
Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service that Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) member institutions must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances. Section 10(g)(2) of the Bank Act requires that, in establishing these community support requirements for Bank members, FHFA take into account factors such as the Bank member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) and record of lending to first-time homebuyers.
Part 1290 of FHFA's regulations implements the statutory requirements by providing uniform community support standards that all Bank members must meet, as well as review criteria that FHFA staff must apply to determine compliance with section 10(g) of the Bank Act. Section 1290.2 of the regulations requires that each Bank member submit to FHFA biennially a completed Community Support Statement (Form 60), which contains several short questions the answers to which are used by FHFA to assess the responding member's compliance with the CRA and first time homebuyer performance standards. In section I of the form, a member that is subject to the CRA must record its current CRA rating and the date of its most recent CRA evaluation. Section II of the form addresses a member's efforts to assist first time homebuyers—a member may either record the amount of loans made to first time homebuyers (in dollars and as a percentage of total mortgage loans) in the previous year, indicate the types of programs it has undertaken to assist first time home buyers (by checking selections from a list) or do both. If a member has received a CRA rating of “outstanding,” it need not complete section II of the form. A copy of Form 60 is available at
Section 1290.5 describes the circumstances under which FHFA will restrict a member's access to long-term Bank advances for failure to meet the community support requirements. It also permits Bank members whose access to long-term advances has been restricted to apply directly to FHFA to remove the restriction under certain circumstances.
The information collection contained in Form 60 and part 1290 are necessary to enable and are used by FHFA to determine whether Bank members satisfy the statutory and regulatory
The OMB number for the information collection is 2590-0005. The OMB clearance for the information collection expires on October 31, 2012. The likely respondents are institutions that are Bank members.
The FHFA estimates the total annual average number of respondents that must complete Form 60 at 3,900 Bank members (half of all Bank members each year), with one response per member and an average burden per response of one hour. In addition, FHFA estimates the total annual average number of Bank members whose access to long-term advances has been restricted that will apply to FHFA to remove the restriction at 14 Bank members, with one response per member and an average burden per response of one hour. Thus, the estimate for the total annual hour burden is 3,914 hours.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FHFA published a request for public comments regarding this information collection in the
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the FHFA estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is submitting the information collection known as “Federal Home Loan Bank Acquired Member Assets, Core Mission Activities, Investments and Advances,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number 2590-0008 which is due to expire on October 31, 2012.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before November 29, 2012.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-6974, Email address:
•
•
•
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number on the FHFA Web site at
Rajkumar Thangavelu, Financial Database Specialist at 202-649-3943 (not a toll-free number),
The Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) are authorized under 12 CFR part 955 to acquire from their member financial institutions and non-member housing associates certain home mortgage loans and related assets, which are referred to as “Acquired Member Assets” or “AMA.” In conjunction with this authority, each Bank that acquires AMA is required by regulation to report to FHFA certain data regarding each loan acquired, as specified in FHFA's Data Reporting Manual (DRM). The DRM specifies 87 data elements that must be reported semi-annually for each new loan acquired, as well as 22 additional data elements that must be reported semi-annually for existing AMA loans or loan participations held in the Bank's portfolio. The DRM also requires that the Banks report aggregated AMA loan data on a quarterly basis. FHFA uses the collected loan-level and aggregated AMA data to monitor the safety and soundness of the Banks and the extent to which the Banks are fulfilling their statutory housing finance mission through their AMA programs.
Since 2010, FHFA has also published the previous calendar year's loan-level AMA data in an online public use database.
While each Bank that acquires or holds AMA loans must report both loan-level and aggregated AMA data directly to FHFA, the Bank initially must collect some of the underlying loan-level data from the member institution or housing associate from which the Bank acquires the loan (this is usually, but not always, the originator of the loan). The Bank typically collects the data for a particular AMA loan from the seller at the time the Bank agrees to acquire the loan. The Bank then uses this loan-level data to derive many of the other data elements that it is required to report to FHFA. For example, from the address of the property that secures the loan, a Bank is able to determine from publicly-available information the census tract code (and other similar geographic codes) for the property, as well as the median family income, and other data regarding the census tract or other defined geographic area. With this additional information, the Bank is also able to calculate various ratios, such as the ratio of the borrower's income to the area median family income, which it is required to report under the DRM. Finally, some of the loan-level data originates with the Bank itself, such as the name of the acquiring Bank, the unique loan number assigned to the acquired loan, and the AMA program under which the loan was acquired.
All but 8 to 10 of the data elements provided by the seller to the acquiring Bank are information that any purchaser of mortgage loans would require a seller to furnish in the ordinary course of business, even in the absence of any statutory or regulatory requirements. For example, the Bank must report, and the seller must therefore initially provide, data on: the location and type of the residential property securing the loan; the annual income and the debt-to-income ratio of the borrower and any co-borrowers; and the unpaid principal balance, term-to-maturity, interest rate, and type (
The OMB control number for the information collection, which expires on October 31, 2012, is 2590-0008. The likely respondents are member and non-member financial institutions that sell AMA assets to Banks.
FHFA estimates that the hour burden associated with the AMA collection will be lower than that estimated when the agency last requested clearance for this control number. FHFA estimates that the total annual average number of AMA loans acquired by all Banks will be 48,000 (640 member respondents x 75 loans per respondent). The estimate average time needed for a respondent to record and transmit the relevant data to the acquiring Bank will be 5 minutes per loan. Accordingly, the estimate for the total annual hour burden on respondents is 4,000 hours (640 x 75 x 5 minutes per loan).
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FHFA published a request for public comments regarding this information collection in the
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the FHFA estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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 November 14, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2012-26297) published on page 65190 of the issue for Thursday, October 25, 2012.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas heading, the entry for Bryon Dirk Bagenstos, Cherokee, Oklahoma; Greggory Earl Glass, Kevin Russell Murrow, Mike Lee Mackey, all of Alva, Oklahoma; and Warren Dean Hughes, Carmen, Oklahoma, is revised to read as follows:
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by November 9, 2012.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 23, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meeting will be open to the public.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. If you require special assistance due to a disability, please contact MacKenzie Robertson at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact MacKenzie Robertson at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact MacKenzie Robertson at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
45 CFR part 286 Subpart E requires the strictest controls on funding requirements, which necessities review of documentation in support of Tribal expenditures for reimbursement. Comments received from previous efforts to implement a similar Tribal TANF report Form ACF-196T were used to guide ACF in the development of the product presented with this submittal
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of a meeting of the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Gail Dapolito or Sheryl Clark, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-0314, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington DC area). Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
In the
The teleconference meeting will be held on November 29, 2012 from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.
On page 63841, in the first column, last paragraph, the
On November 29, 2012 the committee will meet in open session to hear updates of research programs in the Gene Transfer and Immunogenicity Branch, Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA.
On page 63841, second column, second paragraph, first sentence, the
On November 29, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) the meeting is open to the public.
On page 63841, second column, second paragraph, fourth sentence, the
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.
On page 63841, second column, third paragraph, first sentence, the
On November 29, 2012 from approximately 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)).
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Response to solicitation of comments.
The Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) plans to move forward in implementing annual changes to the State Title V MCH Block Grant allocations, beginning in Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, using the U.S. Census Bureau's 3-year American Community Survey (ACS) poverty estimates. Title V MCH Block Grant funds are currently allocated to states based in part on a calculation of the number of children living in poverty (in an individual state) as compared to the total number of children living in poverty in the United States. Historically, data for the number of children in poverty in each state came from the Decennial Census. As the Census Bureau has replaced the Decennial Census long-form sample questionnaire with the ACS, MCHB
Yearly changes in the MCH Block Grant allocations for individual states will be buffered by the use of shared data for two of the three data years in the rolling period estimate. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACS is the best source of survey-based state-level income and poverty estimates. Moreover, ACS child poverty estimates are produced annually, and their use will allow the Block Grant allocation proportions to be updated more frequently than every 10 years.
Cassie Lauver, Director, Division of State and Community Health, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, Room 18-31, Rockville, Maryland 20857, or by telephone at (301) 443-2204.
Beginning in FY 2013, HRSA will use the U.S. Census Bureau's ACS 3-year rolling average data to determine the annual poverty-based allocations to states under Section 502 of Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 702). The Census Bureau produces annual state-level poverty estimates based on the most recent 1, 3, and 5 years of ACS data, as well as annual model-based Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE). Based on a thorough review, HRSA determined that the 3-year time frame strikes an appropriate balance between reliability (strength of 5-year estimates) and currency (strength of 1-year estimates). The 3-year estimates provide necessary stability in annual poverty-based allocation changes for all states, regardless of size, while still allowing the allocations to be responsive to changes in the distribution of children in poverty across states. With the 3-year estimates for FY 2013 already available, states have been informed of the proposed changes and need for adjustment from the existing allocation proportions based on the 2000 Census data. The ACS data are released annually by the U.S. Census Bureau in October which will allow states to be aware of the poverty-based allocation proportions close to a year in advance of each subsequent fiscal year.
The proposed change in State Title V MCH Block Grant allocations was announced in the
The remaining comments did not specifically address the proposed changes in State Title V MCH Block Grant allocation, but instead expressed concern with the size of the federal government; accuracy of Census data, generally; and equity of the statutorily-mandated Title V funding formula. These issues were not addressed in greater detail because they are beyond the scope of this notice.
This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (60 FR 56605, as amended November 6, 1995; as last amended at 77 FR 48525-48526 dated August 14, 2012).
This notice reflects organizational changes to the Health Resources and Services Administration. This notice updates the functional statements for the Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Service (RU) and the Bureau of Health Professions (RP). Specifically, this notice: (1) Transfers the functions associated with the Office of Shortage Designation (RP2) from the Bureau of Health Professions (RP), to the Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Service (RU); (2) changes the name of the Office of Policy and Program Development (RU8) to the Division of Policy and Shortage Designation (RU8); (3) updates the functional statement for the Office of Policy and Program Development (RU8); (4) updates the functional statement for the Bureau of Health Professions and the Office of the Associate Administrator, Bureau of Health Professions (RP); (5) changes the name of the Division of Workforce and Performance Management (RPV) to the Office of Performance Measurement (RP4); (6) changes the name of the National Center for Workforce Analysis (RPW) to the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (RPW); (7) transfers the functions associated with the international migration, domestic training, and utilization of foreign medical graduates and U.S. citizens studying abroad from the Division of Medicine and Dentistry (RPC) to the newly named National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (RPW) and updates the functional statement for the Division of Medicine and Dentistry (RPC); (8) transfers the administration of grants, cooperative agreements and the clearance of correspondence function from the Office of Administrative
Delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Service (RU) is headed by the Associate Administrator, who reports directly to the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. The Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Service includes the following components:
(1) Office of the Associate Administrator (RU);
(2) Office of Legal and Compliance (RU1);
(3) Division of National Health Service Corps (RU5);
(4) Division of Nursing and Public Health (RU6);
(5) Division of External Affairs (RU7);
(6) Division of Policy and Shortage Designation (RU8);
(7) Division of Program Operations (RU9);
(8) Division of Regional Operations (RU10); and
(9) Office of Business Operations (RU11).
(1) Update the functional statement for the Office of Policy and Program Development (RU8).
Serves as the focal point for the development of BCRS programs and policies and directly supports national efforts to analyze and address equitable distribution of health professionals for access to health care for underserved populations. This Division: (1) Leads and coordinates the analysis, development and drafting of policy impacting BCRS programs; (2) coordinates program planning and tracking of legislation and other information related to BCRS programs; (3) leads and monitors the development of workforce projections relating to BCRS programs; (4) provides oversight, processing and coordination for the J1-visa program; (5) performs environmental scanning on issues that affect BCRS programs and assesses the impact of programs on underserved communities; (6) monitors BCRS activities in relation to HRSA's Strategic Plan; (7) develops budget projections and justifications; (8) serves as the Bureau's focal point for program information; (9) works collaboratively with other components within HRSA and HHS, and with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and other public and private organizations on all issues affecting BCRS programs and policies including health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) and medically-underserved areas and populations; (10) directly supports national efforts to analyze and address equitable distribution of health professionals for access to health care for underserved populations; (11) recommends HPSAs and medically-underserved areas and populations (MUAs/MUPs); (12) approves designation requests and finalizes designation policies and procedures for both current and proposed designation criteria; (13) negotiates and approves state designation agreements; and (14) oversees grants to state primary care offices and conducts all business management aspects of the review, negotiation, award, and administration of these grants.
Delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Bureau of Health Professions (RP) is headed by the Associate Administrator, who reports directly to the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. The Bureau of Health Professions includes the following components:
(1) Office of the Associate Administrator (RP);
(2) Office of Administrative Management Services (RP1);
(3) Office of Policy Coordination (RP3);
(4) Office of Performance Measurement (RP4);
(5) Division of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Education (RPF);
(6) Division of Medicine and Dentistry (RPC);
(7) Division of Nursing (RPB);
(8) Division of Practitioner Data Banks (RPG);
(9) Division of Student Loans and Scholarships (RPD); and
(10) National Center for Health Workforce Analysis.
(1) Delete the functional statement for the Bureau of Health Professions (RP) and replace in its entirety.
The Bureau of Health Professions' programs are designed to improve the health of the nation's underserved communities and vulnerable populations by assuring a diverse, culturally competent workforce that is ready to provide access to quality health care services. Bureau of Health Professions' program components provide workforce studies, including research analysis of alternative methodologies for areas of need, training grants for health professions, financial support to students, information to protect the public from unsafe health care practitioners, and support for graduate medical education at the nation's freestanding children's hospitals and teaching health centers. The Health Professions Training Program awards grants to health profession schools and training programs in every state. Grantees use the funds to develop, expand, and enhance their efforts to train the workforce America needs.
The Office of the Associate Administrator provides overall leadership, direction, coordination, and planning in support of the Bureau of Health Professions' programs to ensure alignment and support of the Agency mission and strategic objectives. Specifically, the Office of the Associate Administrator: (1) Directs and provides policy guidance for workforce recruitment, student assistance, training, and placement of health professionals to serve in underserved areas; (2) establishes program goals and priorities, and provides oversight of program quality and integrity in execution; (3) maintains effective relationships within HRSA and with other federal and non-federal agencies, state and local governments, and other public and private organizations concerned with health workforce development and improving access to health care for the nation's underserved; (4) plans, directs, and coordinates Bureau-wide management and administrative activities; (5) leads and guides Bureau programs in recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce; and (6) coordinates, reviews, and provides clearance of correspondence and official documents entering and leaving the Bureau.
The Office of Administrative Management Services collaborates with
The Office of Policy Coordination serves as the focal point for coordination and integration of Bureau policy development, analyses, and evaluation. Specifically: (1) Coordinates Bureau-wide, cross-cutting initiatives; (2) links Bureau policy activities to HRSA-wide policy development, analyses, and evaluation; (3) serves as a key point of contact to coordinate public relations and media communications, as well as activities related to congressional inquiries, and other stakeholder groups in conjunction with the Agency and Department; (4) prepares policy analysis papers and other planning documents as required; (5) analyzes issues arising from legislation, budget proposals, regulatory actions and other program or policy actions; (6) coordinates, reviews, and provides clearance of correspondence and official documents entering and leaving the Bureau as needed; (7) conducts all business management aspects of the review, negotiation, award, and administration of grants and cooperative agreements; and (8) assumes special projects or takes the lead on certain issues as tasked by the Bureau Associate or Deputy Associate Administrator.
The Office of Performance Measurement serves as the Bureau focal point for performance measurement coordination, reporting, evaluation, and analysis. Specifically: (1) Leads, guides, and coordinates performance measurement, performance reporting, and program evaluation activities of the Bureau's Divisions and Offices; (2) coordinates and guides the Bureau's efforts to use performance information to improve program planning and implementation; (3) maintains effective relationships within HRSA and with other federal and non-federal agencies engaged in program evaluation; (4) promotes quality improvement in health professions education through collaboration and partnerships with national and international institutes and centers for quality improvement; and (5) works collaboratively with the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis.
The Division of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Education serves as the Bureau's lead for increasing the public health and behavioral health workforce, promoting interdisciplinary health professions issues and programs, including geriatric training, and increasing the diversity of the health professions workforce. Specifically: (1) Provides grants and technical assistance to expand and enhance training critical to the current and future public health workforce, supports academic-community partnerships, expands and improves the quality of health professions interdisciplinary and inter-professional education, expands health career opportunities for diverse and disadvantaged populations and supports and guides the career development in geriatric specialties; (2) evaluates programmatic data and promotes the dissemination and application of findings arising from supported programs; (3) collaborates within the Bureau to conduct, support, or obtain analytical studies to determine the present and future supply requirements of the healthcare workforce in the areas addressed by the Division of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Education's programs; (4) provides leadership and staff support for the Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages; and (5) represents the Bureau, Agency, and federal government, as designated, on national committees, and maintains effective relationships within HRSA and with other federal and non-federal agencies, state and local governmental agencies, and other public and private organizations concerned with public health and behavioral health workforce development, and improving access to health care for the nation's underserved.
The Division of Medicine and Dentistry serves as the Bureau's lead in support and evaluation of medical and dental personnel development and utilization including (a) primary care physicians, (b) dentists, (c) dental hygienists, and (d) physician assistants to provide health care in underserved areas. Specifically: (1) Administers grants to educational institutions for the development, improvement, and operation of educational programs for primary care physicians (pre-doctoral, residency) and physician assistants, including support for community-based training and funding for faculty development to teach in primary care specialties training; (2) provides technical assistance and consultation to grantee institutions and other governmental and private organizations on the operation of these educational programs which includes funding for the nation's free standing children's hospitals to support graduate medical education; (3) evaluates programmatic data and promotes the dissemination and application of findings arising from supported programs; (4) collaborates within the Bureau to conduct, support, or obtain analytical studies to determine the present and future supply and requirements of physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and physician assistants by specialty, geographic location, and for state planning efforts; (5) encourages community-based training opportunities for primary care providers, particularly in underserved areas; (6) provides leadership and staff support for the Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry and for the Council on Graduate Medical Education; and (7) represents the Bureau, Agency, and federal government, as designated, on national committees maintaining effective relationships within HRSA and with other federal and non-federal agencies, state and local governments, and other public and private organizations concerned with health personnel development and improving access to health care for the nation's underserved.
The Division of Nursing serves as the Bureau's leader for nursing education and practice, including increasing the diversity of the nursing workforce to improve access to health care in underserved areas. Specifically: (1) Provides grants and technical assistance for schools of nursing in the development and improvement of
The Division of Practitioner Data Banks coordinates with the Department and other federal entities, state licensing boards, national, state, and local professional organizations, to promote quality assurance efforts and deter fraud and abuse by administering the National Practitioner Data Bank and the Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank. Specifically: (1) Monitors adverse licensure information on all licensed health care practitioners and health care entities; (2) develops, proposes, and monitors efforts for (a) credential assessment, granting of privileges, monitoring and evaluating programs for physicians, dentists, other health care professionals including quality assurance, (b) professional review of specified medical events in the health care system including quality assurance, and (c) risk management and utilization reviews; (3) encourages and supports evaluation and demonstration projects and research concerning quality assurance, medical liability and malpractice; (4) ensures integrity of data collection following all disclosure procedures without fail; (5) conducts and supports research based on the National Practitioner Data Bank and Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank information; (6) maintains active consultative relations with professional organizations, societies and federal agencies involved with the National Practitioner Data Bank and Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank; (7) works with the Secretary's office to provide technical assistance to states undertaking malpractice reform; and (8) maintains effective relations with the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Inspector General, and HHS concerning practitioner licensing and data bank issues.
The Division of Student Loans and Scholarships serves as the focal point for overseeing federal loan and scholarship programs supporting health professionals. Specifically: (1) Monitors and assesses educational and financial institutions with respect to capabilities and management of federal support for students and the tracking of obligatory service requirements; (2) develops and conducts training activities for staff of educational and financial institutions; (3) coordinates financial aspects of programs with educational institutions; (4) develops program data needs and reporting requirements; and (5) maintains effective relationships within HRSA and with other federal and non-federal agencies, state and local governments, and other public and private organizations concerning student assistance.
The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis provides leadership in the development and dissemination of accurate and timely data for analysis and research regarding the nation's health workforce in order to inform those making decisions for policymakers and to support goals related to the nation's health professionals' workforce. Specifically: (1) Develops the capacity to directly collect health professions workforce data to quantify and measure supply, demand, distribution, shortages and surpluses at the national level, for selected disciplines and selected states and regions; (2) collaborates and conducts studies to assess and monitor factors, such as policy actions likely to impact future supply, demand, distribution and/or use of health professionals; (3) develops and coordinates the Bureaus' data collection and modeling on health professions' workforce in conjunction with other entities involved in data collection and analysis; (4) maintains effective relationships, conducts data collection and assesses quality within HRSA staff, other federal and non-federal agencies, and organizations on the health professions workforce; (5) produces reports and disseminates data on the health professions workforce within HRSA to other federal and non-federal agencies, state and local governments, other public and private organizations, and the public concerned with health personnel development and improving access to health care for the nation's underserved; (6) provides guidance to state partnerships conducting comprehensive workforce data collection on the health care workforce which will support better coordination and implementation for workforce planning and analysis at the state level; (7) supports and conducts programs with respect to activities associated with the international migration, domestic training, and utilization of foreign medical graduates and U.S. citizens studying abroad; and (8) works collaboratively with the Office of Performance Measurement.
All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to HRSA officials that were in effect immediately prior to this reorganization, and that are consistent with this reorganization, shall continue in effect pending further re-delegation.
This reorganization is effective upon date of signature.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitationsimposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive evaluation option license to practice the inventions covered under the scope of United States Patent No. 6,737,511 issued May 18, 2004 entitled “Receptor-mediated Uptake of an Extracellular BCL-x
The prospective exclusive evaluation option license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the pre-clinical evaluation of lead therapeutic candidates for the development of human therapeutics within the field of cancer and neurological diseases. Upon expiration or termination of the exclusive evaluation option license, MEDICENNA will have the right to execute an exclusive patent commercialization license which will supersede and replace the exclusive evaluation option license with no broader territory than granted in the exclusive evaluation option license and the field of use will be commensurate with the commercial development plan at the time of conversion.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before November 14, 2012 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license should be directed to: Sabarni K. Chatterjee, Ph.D., M.B.A. Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-5587; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
The technologies covered under the present inventions relate to (1) apoptosis-modifying fusion proteins with at least two domains, one of which targets the fusion proteins to a target cell, and another of which modifies an apoptotic response of the target cell. For example, fusing various cell-binding domains to Bcl-X
The prospective exclusive evaluation option license is being considered under the small business initiative launched on October 1, 2011 and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.7. The prospective exclusive evaluation option license, and a subsequent exclusive patent commercialization license, may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.7.
Any additional, properly filed, and complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive evaluation option license to practice the inventions embodied in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2009/054478, U.S. Patent Application No. 13/059,335 and foreign equivalents thereof entitled “Chemopreventive of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma” (HHS Ref. No. E-302-2008/0) and PCT Patent Application No. PCT/IL2010/000694, U.S. Patent Application No. 13/391,756 and foreign equivalents thereof entitled “Prevention and Treatment of Oral and Lips Diseases Using Sirolimus and Derivatives Sustained Release Delivery Systems for Local Application to the Oral Cavity” (HHS Ref. No. E-282-2009/0) to Rapamycin Holdings, Inc., which is located in San Antonio, TX. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive evaluation option license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to use of the Licensed Patent Rights for the prevention and treatment of head and neck cancers.
Upon the expiration or termination of the exclusive evaluation option license, Rapamycin Holdings, Inc. will have the exclusive right to execute an exclusive commercialization license which will supersede and replace the exclusive evaluation option license with no greater field of use and territory than granted in the exclusive evaluation option license.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before November 14, 2012 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Whitney A. Hastings, Ph.D., Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 451-7337; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
In head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a cancer occurring mostly in the mouth, it is frequently observed that the Akt/mTOR pathway is abnormally activated. Therefore, inhibiting this signaling pathway may help in treating this disease. Rapamycin and its analogs are known to inhibit the activity of mTOR so in principle they could serve as therapeutics for treating HNSCC.
This technology describes a method of potentially preventing or treating HNSCC through the inhibition of mTOR activity. The proof of this principle was demonstrated by rapid regression of mouth tumors in mice afflicted with Cowden syndrome with the administration of rapamycin. Like HNSCC, development of this disease is linked to over activation of the Akt/mTOR pathway. Furthermore, the therapeutic potential of rapamycin was demonstrated using mice in experiments that model chronic exposure to tobacco, which promotes the development of HNSCC. Therefore, inhibitors of mTOR have considerable potential in the prevention and treatment of HNSCC. Moreover, using a local, sustained-release oral drug delivery system for early intervention to prevent potentially malignant or
The prospective exclusive license and any further license applications received as objections to this Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive License, will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive evaluation option license is being considered under the small business initiative launched on 1 October 2011, and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive evaluation option license, and a subsequent exclusive commercialization license, may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice. A previous Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive License for the instant technology was published in 77 FR 28614, Tuesday, May 15, 2012.
Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is soliciting comments from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the scope of future revisions to “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1). In association with this request for comments, FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held two public meetings on August 22, 2012 and September 13, 2012.
Written comments must be submitted to FEMA by January 31, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. FEMA-2012-0026, by one of the following methods:
Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information to the public regulatory docket. Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the address specified in the
Vanessa Quinn, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Branch Chief, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Branch, Technological Hazards Division, National Preparedness Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Phone Number: 703-605-1535.
FEMA, working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is soliciting comments from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the scope of future revisions to “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. The document is available online at
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 is a joint FEMA/NRC policy document that provides guidance on the sixteen Planning Standards referenced in FEMA's regulations at 44 CFR 350.5 and the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 50. Both agencies use these Planning Standards to evaluate the adequacy of the emergency plans of commercial nuclear power plant owners and operators (NRC), and the emergency plans and preparedness of State and local governments within the Emergency Planning Zones surrounding commercial nuclear power plants (FEMA).
Since the publication of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 in November 1980, four supplementary documents and one addendum have been issued that update and modify specific planning and procedural elements. These documents are available online at
FEMA and the NRC held two public meetings on August 22, 2012 and
Through this Notice, we are soliciting comments from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the scope of future revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. While not limited to these specific areas, we are soliciting comments on the following issues related to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 revision:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day Notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0043, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send your comments by November 29, 2012. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Susan L. Perkins, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-3398; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 29, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via email at
All submissions received must include the agency name, OMB Control Number and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 29, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer and to DHS. Comments should be submitted to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 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
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 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 Web site at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you 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 Web 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.
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 31, 2012.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to DHS using one of the following methods: (1) By mail to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020; (2) by email to
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 29, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer and to DHS. Comments should be submitted to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-5806 or via email at
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 29, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer and to DHS. Comments should be submitted to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-5806 or via email at
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 31, 2012 .
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to DHS using one of the following methods: (1) By mail to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020; (2) by email to
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 31, 2012.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020. Comments may be submitted to DHS via email 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
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's 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)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 31, 2012.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2020. Comments may be submitted to DHS via email 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
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 31, 2012.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020. Comments may be submitted to DHS via email 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
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's 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)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice; correction.
On October 23, 2012 at 77 FR 64820 HUD published an information collection notice entitled “Indian Housing Block Grants Program Reporting”. The following information is a correction to the previous notice publish October 23, 2012.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or tribally designated housing entities that receive IHBG funds are required annually to submit HUD-52737 that consists of two components: the Indian Housing Plan (IHP) component and the Annual Performance Report (APR) component.
The IHP is required by Section 102 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) and describes the eligible IHBG-funded, affordable housing activities the recipient plans to conduct for the benefit of low and moderate income tribal members and identifies the intended outcomes and outputs for the upcoming 12-month year. The recipient submits the IHP at least 75 days prior to the beginning of its 12-month program year. HUD conducts a limited review of the IHP to determine that the planned activities are in compliance with NAHASDA requirements, as defined at 24 CFR Part 1000.
At the end of the 12-month period, the recipient submits the APR that is required by Section 404 of NAHASDA and describes (1) the use of grant funds during the prior 12-month period; (2) the actual outcomes and outputs achieved; (3) program accomplishments; and (4) jobs supported by IHBG-funded activities. HUD uses the information in the APR to review the recipient's progress in implementing the IHP, verify whether the activities are eligible and to determine if the recipient has the capacity to continue implementing the activities described in the IHP in a timely manner. The information in the APR also will be used to provide Congress, stakeholders, and other interested parties with information on how the IHBG funds are being used to meet affordable housing needs within Native American communities.
The IHP/APR is currently available in a Word version. With this submission HUD intends to make available a revised Word version, an Excel version, and a version on HUD's Energy and Performance Information Center (EPIC) Web site. All three versions of the IHP/APR request the same information and a recipient may elect to submit to HUD either the Word, Excel, or EPIC versions; however, the Excel and EPIC versions are preferred because of their automated capabilities and reduced burden. The Word, Excel, and EPIC versions differ from the current version of HUD-52737 with the elimination of Line 1 (Planned Grant-Based Budget for Eligible Programs) in Section 5 (Budgets) because collection of this information served no valid purpose.
Participants in the IHBG program are responsible for notifying HUD of changes to the Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS) component of the IHBG formula. HUD is notified of changes in the FCAS through a
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577-0218) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806; email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This notice also lists the following information:
Description of the need for the information and proposed use:
Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or tribally designated housing entities that receive IHBG funds are required annually to submit HUD-52737 that consists of two components: the Indian Housing Plan (IHP) component and the Annual Performance Report (APR) component.
The IHP is required by Section 102 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) and describes the eligible IHBG-funded, affordable housing activities the recipient plans to conduct for the benefit of low and moderate income tribal members and identifies the intended outcomes and outputs for the upcoming 12-month year. The recipient submits the IHP at least 75 days prior to the beginning of its 12-month program year. HUD conducts a limited review of the IHP to determine that the planned activities are in compliance with NAHASDA requirements, as defined at 24 CFR Part 1000.
At the end of the 12-month period, the recipient submits the APR that is required by Section 404 of NAHASDA and describes (1) the use of grant funds during the prior 12-month period; (2) the actual outcomes and outputs achieved; (3) program accomplishments; and (4) jobs supported by IHBG-funded activities. HUD uses the information in the APR to review the recipient's progress in implementing the IHP, verify whether the activities are eligible and to determine if the recipient has the capacity to continue implementing the activities described in the IHP in a timely manner. The information in the APR also will be used to provide Congress, stakeholders, and other interested parties with information on how the IHBG funds are being used to meet affordable housing needs within Native American communities.
The IHP/APR is currently available in a Word version. With this submission HUD intends to make available a revised Word version, an Excel version, and a version on HUD's Energy and Performance Information Center (EPIC) Web site. All three versions of the IHP/APR request the same information and a recipient may elect to submit to HUD either the Word, Excel, or EPIC versions; however, the Excel and EPIC versions are preferred because of their automated capabilities and reduced burden. The Word, Excel, and EPIC versions differ from the current version of HUD-52737 with the elimination of Line 1 (Planned Grant-Based Budget for Eligible Programs) in Section 5 (Budgets) because collection of this information served no valid purpose.
Participants in the IHBG program are responsible for notifying HUD of changes to the Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS) component of the IHBG formula. HUD is notified of changes in the FCAS through a
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of meetings.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Osage Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will meet as indicated below.
Mr. Eddie Streater, Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wewoka Agency, P.O. Box 1540, Seminole, OK 74818; telephone (405) 257-6250; fax (405) 257-3875; or email
On October 14, 2011, the United States and the Osage Nation (formerly known as the Osage Tribe) signed a Settlement Agreement to resolve litigation regarding alleged mismanagement of the Osage Nation's oil and gas mineral estate, among other claims. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed that it would be mutually beneficial “to address means of improving the trust management of the Osage Mineral Estate, the Osage Tribal Trust Account, and Other Osage Accounts.” Settlement Agreement, Paragraph 1.i. The parties agreed that a review and revision of the existing regulations is warranted to better assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in managing the Osage Mineral Estate. The parties agreed to engage in a negotiated rulemaking for this purpose. Settlement Agreement, Paragraph 9.b. After the Committee submits its report, BIA will develop a proposed rule to be published in the
Individuals or groups requesting to make oral comments at the public Committee meeting will be limited to 5 minutes per speaker. Speakers who wish to expand their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak, but could not be accommodated during the public comment period, are encouraged to submit their comments in written form to the Committee after the meeting at the address provided above. There will be a sign-up sheet at the meeting for those wishing to speak during the public comment period.
The meeting location is open to the public. Space is limited, however, so we strongly encourage all interested in attending to preregister by submitting your name and contact information via email to Mr. Eddie Streater at
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
On October 22, 2012, the Department of Commerce published notice in the
Effective October 22, 2012.
Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
This investigation is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 201.10 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.10).
By order of the Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 25, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, California. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on October 4, October 16, and October 17, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,947,456 (“the '456 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,596,595 (“the '595 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 11-13, 15, and 20-24 of the '456 patent and claims 14, 17, and 19 of the '595 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On October 23, 2012, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii in the lawsuit entitled
In this action, the United States filed a complaint under the Clean Air Act alleging violations at the Central Maui Municipal Solid Waste Landfill located on the island of Maui in Hawaii. The consent decree requires the County to implement injunctive relief including conducting enhanced gas monitoring, complying with interim wellhead temperature limits and implementing fire response procedures. The consent decree also requires the County to pay a civil penalty of $380,000 and to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (“the SEP”). The SEP requires the County to install and operate at least eight wind turbines at the Landfill property.
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 $14.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Collection of Laboratory Analysis Data on Drug Samples Tested by Non-Federal (State and Local Government) Crime Laboratories
60-Day notice of information collection under review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 31, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Gallagher, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4)
(5)
(6)
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting four related Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before November 29, 2012.
A copy of these ICRs with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about these requests to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires the Secretary of Labor to certify, among other things, that any foreign worker seeking to enter the United States (U.S.) to perform certain skilled or unskilled labor will not, by doing so, adversely affect wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. The Secretary must also certify that there are not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, and qualified to perform such skilled or unskilled labor. Before any employer may petition for any temporary skilled or unskilled foreign workers, it must submit a request for certification to the Secretary containing the elements prescribed by the INA and regulations.
The DOL currently obtains OMB approval for the subject information collections under Control Numbers 1205-0466, Foreign Labor Certification Instruments, and 1205-0404, Labor Certification Letter for H-2A Agricultural Foreign Workers. In order to improve internal administration of the information collection requirements, the DOL is taking this opportunity to rename OMB Control Number 1205-0466 and to separate out the three different sets of information collection requirements under three unique Control Numbers. While the Department believes it must now submit the information collections approved under Control Number 1205-0404 and 1205-0466 as separate ICRs, in order to maintain OMB clearance for the existing requirements, the DOL intends to merge the ICRs via a non-material change request to the 1205-0466 ICR. Such a request would be made upon receiving OMB approval of the current actions and would not change the information collection requirements in any way; the DOL would simultaneously seek to discontinue Control Number 1205-0404.
The first of current actions being submitted for OMB approval is revised Control Number 1205-0466 that will contain Form ETA-9142A,
The second current ICR being submitted for OMB approval is Control Number 1205-0404, which specifically has to do with the notification requirements of the 50 percent rule in the H-2A program and is being submitted without changes. Regulations 20 CFR 655.135(d) stipulates that an employer must continue to provide employment to any qualified and eligible U.S. worker who applies to the employer until 50 percent of the work contract period, under which the foreign worker is in the job, has elapsed. The notification required under the regulations at 20 CFR 655.135(c) is written by the employer and sent to the applicable State Workforce Agency (SWA), if the foreign worker begins traveling to the employer's place of work any time after the three days prior to the first date of need specified in the work contract. The SWA uses the information to calculate the end of the 50 percent rule referral requirements. The regulations also specify other notifications the employer must make (e.g., remind the worker of the requirement to leave the U.S. at the end of the certified period for work or upon separation from the employer, unless the worker is being sponsored by a subsequent employer; and informing the DOL of H-2A workers who have abandoned their jobs or been terminated). The ETA uses Form ETA-9144 to inform employers of these obligations.
The first new ICR the DOL is currently submitting has been issued ICR Reference Number 201210-1205-001, H-2B Foreign Labor Certification Program. This new ICR will contain forms and most regulatory information collection requirements applicable to the H-2B program. Specifically, it will contain Form ETA 9142B,
The second new ICR the DOL is submitting has been assigned ICR Reference Number 201210-1205-002, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination, will contain Form ETA-
On April 8, 2012, the OMB approved changes to the information collected under Control Number 1205-0466, in accordance with the 2012 H-2B final rule published on February 21, 2012 (77 FR 10038). On April 27, 2012, the DOL received from the OMB a six-month approval to revert to the old information collection requirements. The approval allowed the ETA to comply with a Federal Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, injunction preventing the DOL from implementing the 2012 H-2B Final Rule. (
The information collections covered in this notice are subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The ICRs are summarized as follows:
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) extension titled, “Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before November 29, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
The Social Security Act authorizes the DOL to prescribe standard definitions, methods and procedures, and reporting requirements for the collection of information on benefit payment accuracy and the reemployment of unemployment insurance benefit recipients to ensure the verification of these data. The DOL uses information collected on Forms ETA-9128, 9128U, and ETA-9129 to evaluate State performance in terms of service delivery and to report on the REAs, including the number of scheduled in-person reemployment and eligibility assessments, the number of individuals who failed to appear for scheduled assessments, actions taken as a result of individuals not appearing for an assessment (e.g., benefits termination), results of assessments (e.g., referral to reemployment services, found in compliance with program requirements), estimated savings resulting from cessation of benefits, and estimated savings as a result of accelerated reemployment. Information collected on Form ETA-9128U is required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Reemployment Services and Outcomes Collection for Unemployment Insurance Claimants in Federal Programs,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before November 29, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR describes reemployment activities for Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants in Federal programs to comply with the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96. The basic report format is very similar to reporting Form ETA-9002 (
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Announcement Regarding States Triggering “on” and “off” in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) Program.
The U.S. Department of Labor (Department) produces trigger notices indicating which states qualify for EUC08 benefits, and provides the beginning and ending dates of payable periods for each qualifying state. The trigger notices covering state eligibility for this program can be found at:
The following changes have occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding states' EUC08 trigger status:
• With the week ending September 22, 2012, Utah had served a full 13 week “off” period in Tier 2 of the EUC08 program. Given that the trigger rate for Utah has been at the 6.0 percent trigger rate threshold, this state met the criteria to resume a payable period in Tier 2 of the EUC08 program. This payable period started with the week beginning September 23, 2012. For claimants establishing new eligibility in Tier 2, the maximum potential entitlement in Tier 2 is the lesser of 54 percent of the maximum regular Unemployment Compensation (UC) entitlement or 14 times the regular UC weekly benefit amount.
• With the week ending September 22, 2012, West Virginia and Wisconsin had both served a full 13 week “off” period in Tier 3 of the EUC08 program. Given that the trigger rate for these states had been at or above the 7.0 percent trigger rate threshold, these states met the criteria to resume a payable period in Tier 3 of the EUC08 program. The payable period for these states started with the week beginning September 23, 2012. For claimants establishing new eligibility in Tier 3, the maximum potential entitlement in Tier 3 is the lesser of 35 percent of the maximum regular UC entitlement or 9 times the regular UC weekly benefit amount.
• With the release of national unemployment data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on September 21, 2012, the estimated three month average, seasonally adjusted total unemployment rate for Maryland met the 7.0 percent threshold necessary to trigger “on” in Tier 3 of the EUC08 program. For claimants establishing new eligibility in Tier 3, the maximum potential entitlement is the lesser of 35 percent of the maximum regular UC entitlement or 9 times the regular UC weekly benefit amount. The week beginning October 7, 2012, will be the first week in which EUC08 claimants in Maryland who have exhausted Tier 2, and are otherwise eligible, can establish Tier 3 eligibility.
• With the release of national unemployment data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on September 21, 2012, the estimated three month average, seasonally adjusted total unemployment rate for Michigan met the 9.0 percent threshold necessary to trigger “on” in Tier 4 of the EUC08 program. For claimants establishing new eligibility in Tier 4, the maximum potential entitlement in Tier 4 is the lesser of 24 percent of the maximum regular UC entitlement or 6 times the regular UC weekly benefit amount. The week beginning October 7, 2012, will be the first week in which EUC08 claimants in Michigan who have exhausted Tier 3, and are otherwise eligible, can establish Tier 4 eligibility.
• With the week ending October 6, 2012, Texas will have served a full 13 week “off” period in Tier 3 of the EUC08 program. Given that the trigger rate for Texas is currently at or above the 7.0 percent trigger rate threshold, and no more unemployment rates will be released before October 19, 2012,
• With the week ending October 6, 2012, Georgia and Mississippi will have served a full 13 week “off” period in Tier 4 of the EUC08 program. Given that the trigger rate for these states is currently at or above the 9.0 percent trigger rate threshold, and no more unemployment rates will be released before October 19, 2012, Georgia and Mississippi will meet the criteria to resume a payable period in Tier 4 of the EUC08 program. The payable period will start with the week beginning October 7, 2012. For claimants establishing new eligibility in Tier 4, the maximum potential entitlement in Tier 4 is the lesser of 24 percent of the maximum regular UC entitlement or 6 times the regular UC weekly benefit amount.
• Based on data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on September 21, 2012, the three month average, seasonally adjusted total unemployment rate for the District of Columbia fell below the 9.0 percent trigger rate threshold to remain “on” in Tier 4 of the EUC08 program. As a result, entitlement for claimants in the District of Columbia in the EUC08 program will decrease from a maximum possible duration of 47 weeks to a maximum possible duration of 37 weeks. The week ending October 13, 2012, will be the last week in which EUC claimants in the District of Columbia can exhaust Tier 3, and establish Tier 4 eligibility. Under the phase-out provisions, claimants can receive any remaining entitlement they have in Tier 4 after October 13, 2012.
The duration of benefits payable in the EUC08 program, and the terms and conditions under which they are payable, are governed by Public Laws 110-252, 110-449, 111-5, 111-92, 111-118, 111-144, 111-157, 111-205, 111-312, 112-96, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the Department.
In the case of a state beginning or concluding a payable period in EUC08, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of any change in potential entitlement to each individual who could establish, or had established, eligibility for benefits (20 CFR 615.13 (c)(1) and (c)(4)). Persons who believe they may be entitled to benefits under the EUC08 program, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.
Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.
Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
October 30, 2012.
Randy Heald, Patent Counsel, Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code CC-A, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899; telephone (321) 867-7214; fax (321) 867-1817.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive research only license.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, research only license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,967,051 entitled “Thermal Insulation Systems” and 7,781,492 entitled “Foam-Aerogel Composite Materials for Thermal and Acoustic Insulation and Cryogen Storage,” to Flexure, LLC, having its principal place of business at 4423 Lehigh Road, Suite 235, College Park, Maryland 20740. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Mail Code CC-A, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899. Telephone: 321-867-7214; Facsimile: 321-867-1817.
Randall M. Heald, Patent Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Mail Code CC-A, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899. Telephone: 321-867-7214; Facsimile: 321-867-1817. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Science Foundation.
Notice of a permit modification issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permit modificaitons issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
On August 22, 2012, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from October 4, 2012, to October 17, 2012. The last biweekly notice was published on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63343).
You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by searching on
•
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Please refer to Docket ID 2012-0260 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID 2012-0260 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon which the filing is based is materially different from information previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to re-establish TS requirements for the RHR Drywell Spray function is necessary based on the recognition that the current design basis description in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) does not appropriately reflect the effects of a Small Steam Line Break (SSLB) accident on peak drywell temperatures. The current design basis description describes the bounding condition based on the effects of the Design Basis Accident (DBA) Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), which is considered the Recirculation Suction Line Break (RSLB) accident. Since peak drywell temperatures may be higher for the SSLB accident, and the RHR Drywell Spray function is credited to limit peak drywell temperature following a SSLB, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) apply. Specifically, Criterion 3 [of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) requires that a TS limiting condition for operation be established for items that meet the following]:
“
The proposed changes to re-establish the RHR Drywell Spray requirements in TS do not introduce new equipment or new equipment operating modes, nor do the proposed changes alter existing system relationships. The proposed changes do not affect plant operation, design function, or any analysis that verifies the capability of a Structure, System, or Component (SSC) to perform a design function. There are no changes or modifications to the RHR system. The RHR system will continue to function as designed in all modes of operation, including the Drywell Spray function. There are no significant changes to procedures or training related to the operation of the RHR Drywell Spray function. Primary containment integrity is not adversely impacted and radiological consequences from the accidents analyzed in the UFSAR are not increased. Containment parameters are not increased beyond those previously evaluated and the potential for failure of the containment is not increased.
There is no adverse impact on systems designed to mitigate the consequences of accidents. The proposed changes do not increase system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the consequences of an accident. Since these conditions do not change, the likelihood of failure of [a] SSC [to perform its intended function] is not increased.
The proposed changes do not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any SSC or impact any analyzed accident. Consequently, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected.
Based on the above, Exelon concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to re-establish the RHR Drywell Spray requirements in TS do not alter the design function or operation of any SSC. The RHR system will continue to function as designed in all modes of operation, including the Drywell Spray function. There is no new system component being installed, no new construction, and no performance of a new test or maintenance function. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a new credible failure mechanism or malfunction. The proposed changes do not modify the design function or operation of any SSC. The proposed changes do not introduce new accident initiators. Primary containment integrity is not adversely impacted and radiological consequences from the accidents analyzed in the UFSAR are not increased. Containment parameters are not increased beyond those previously evaluated and the potential for failure of the containment is not increased. The proposed changes do not increase system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the consequences of an accident. Since these conditions do not change, the likelihood of failure of SSC is not increased. Consequently, the proposed changes cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above discussion, Exelon concludes that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change to re-establish TS requirements for the RHR Drywell Spray function is necessary based on the recognition that the current design basis description in the UFSAR does not appropriately reflect the effects of a SSLB accident on peak drywell temperatures. The current design basis description describes the bounding condition based on the effects of the DBA LOCA, which is considered the RSLB accident. Since peak drywell temperatures may be higher for the SSLB, and the RHR Drywell Spray function is credited to limit peak drywell temperature following a SSLB accident, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) apply. Specifically, Criterion 3 [of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) requires that a TS limiting condition for operation be established for items that meet the following]:
The proposed changes do not increase system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the consequences of an accident. Containment parameters are not increased beyond those previously evaluated and the potential for failure of the containment is not increased.
The proposed changes to re-establish the RHR Drywell Spray function in TS are needed in order to reflect the current design basis description related to the SSLB accident. The proposed changes do not exceed or alter a design basis or a safety limit for a parameter to be described or established in the UFSAR or the Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL). Consequently, the proposed changes do not result in a reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above, Exelon concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change will not result in any significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, as the proposed TS change is consistent with the methodologies adopted in the LARs [license amendment requests] recently accepted by the NRC on Wolf Creek, Catawba, and McGuire. The proposed maximum limits of the inter-cell and inter-tier resistance values are based on the resistance values obtained from the battery monitoring and maintenance programs (implemented via preventive maintenance (PM) procedures) at St. Lucie, which are based on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] 450 methodology to maintain the battery cells and connections. The battery monitoring and maintenance programs adopted at St. Lucie for the safety related battery inter-cell connection resistances ensure that the values remain within the required ranges of the established baseline values and will remain bounded by the proposed maximum inter-cell and inter-tier resistance values. This change does not alter any design input used in any accident analysis previously performed. The proposed change constitutes an additional limitation or restriction on the acceptable range of values of the battery inter-cell resistance required to ensure that the batteries are able to perform as designed.
Therefore, the proposed change will not increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated that involves any of the safety related batteries or associated equipment powered by these batteries.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed. There is no change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes/effects which could lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed maximum battery inter-cell and inter-tier resistance values are based on the actual measurements obtained over the years during the 18 month preventive maintenance activities. The measured resistance values are all less than 20% above the baseline installed values, which will ensure that design limits for battery connection resistance are not exceeded. This approach is in accordance with the IEEE 450-1995, Section D.2. This methodology also provides a lower average inter-cell connection resistance limit than both the existing TS limit of 150 μΩ per cell and the vendor's design limits for each St. Lucie Unit. The proposed change to the TS constitutes an additional limitation or restriction on the acceptable range of values of the battery inter-cell resistance required to ensure that the batteries are able to perform as designed.
Thus, this proposed TS change will not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes modify Surveillance Requirements (SRs) regarding the battery terminal and charger voltages and amperage provided in SR 3.8.4.1 and SR 3.8.4.6. Accidents are initiated by the malfunction of plant equipment, or the catastrophic failure of plant structures, systems, or components. The performance of battery testing is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated and does not change the manner in which the batteries are operated. The proposed testing requirements will not contribute to the failure of the batteries nor any plant structure, system, or component. NextEra Energy Duane Arnold has determined that the proposed change in testing provides an equivalent level of assurance that the batteries are capable of performing their intended safety functions. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Verifying battery terminal voltage while on float charge for the batteries helps to ensure the effectiveness of the charging system and the ability of the batteries to perform their intended function. The proposed changes involve the manner in which the subject batteries are tested or maintained, and have no effect on the types or amounts of radiation released or the predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident. The proposed testing requirements are sufficient to provide confidence that these batteries are capable of performing their intended safety functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
This TS SR change for the batteries is based upon the addition of two additional cells to each of the existing DAEC 125 [volts direct current] VDC Safety Related Station Batteries (1D1 & 1D2). The improved batteries with 60 cells are at least equivalent to the existing 58-cell batteries. The batteries, with the added cells, provide an acceptable design margin to the existing batteries. Battery circuit coordination is not adversely affected by the addition of this improved battery with 60 cells. The proposed changes to these TS SRs do not introduce any new accident initiators or precursors, or any new design assumptions for those components used to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
The improvement of the existing batteries, with the addition of 2 cells and the subsequent TS SR changes that verify higher
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment is for an administrative change only. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
This request is for administrative changes only. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes and no failure modes not bounded by previously evaluated accidents will be created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure[s]) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. This request is for administrative changes only. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will not relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not alter any plant equipment or operating practices in such a manner that the probability of an accident is increased. The proposed changes will not alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient event.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant or significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Based on the operability of the remaining ESF Room Cooler and Safety-Related Chiller Train, the accident analysis assumptions continue to be met with enactment of the proposed changes. The system design and operation are not affected by the proposed changes. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not altered by the proposed changes. Finally, the proposed compensatory measures for the increase in Completion Time for chiller overhaul maintenance work activities will provide further assurance that no significant reduction in a safety margin will occur.
The proposed changes provide reasonable assurance that the ESF room Cooler and Safety-Related Chiller system will continue to perform its intended safety function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed changes present no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
There are no design changes associated with the proposed change. Design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to this amendment request will continue to be applicable.
The proposed change will not affect accident initiators or precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained with respect to such initiators or precursors. The DGs' safety function is solely mitigative and is not needed unless there is a loss of offsite power.
The proposed change increases the TS SR limit on maximum voltage following a load rejection but does not physically alter safety related systems nor affect the way in which safety related systems perform their functions. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the DGs, nor does it change the safety function of the DGs. As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended functions for mitigating the consequences of an accident and meeting applicable acceptance criteria. The technical analysis performed to support this proposed amendment has demonstrated that the DGs can withstand voltages above the new proposed maximum voltage limit without a loss of protection. The proposed higher limit will continue to provide assurance that the DGs are protected, and the safety function of the DGs will be unaffected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are no proposed design changes nor or there any changes in the method by which any safety related plant SSC performs its specified safety function. The proposed change will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this amendment.
The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation System, Solid State Protection System, Balance of Plant Engineered Safety Features Actuation System, Main Steam and Feedwater Isolation System, or Load Shedder and Emergency Load Sequencers used in the plant protection systems.
The proposed increase in the TS SR limit does not affect the interaction of the DGs with any system whose failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. The change does not involve a physical modification of the plant. There are no alterations to the parameters within which the plant is normally operated. No changes are being proposed to the procedures relied upon to mitigate a design basis event. The change does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an actuation signal.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions associated with reactor operation or the Reactor Coolant System. The will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor, nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor, loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature, peak local power density, or any other limit and associated margin of safety. Required shutdown margins in the CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT will not be changed.
The proposed change does not eliminate any surveillance or alter the Frequency of surveillances required by the TSs. The increase in the TS SR voltage limit will not affect the ability of the DGs to perform their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
The August 14 and 30, 2012, supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a safety evaluation dated October 4, 2012.
The letter dated August 15, 2012, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope of the original
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 2012.
The supplemental submittals dated September 12, September 20, and October 10, 2012, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 12, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of October 29, November 5, 12, 19, 26, December 3, 2012.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 12, 2012.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 19, 2012.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301-415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301-415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Bill Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits Branch, at 301-415-6200, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by email at
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is issuing Final Interim Staff Guidance (ISG), that augments NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” and NUREG-1537, Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria.” Parts 1 and 2 of the ISG correspond to the parts of NUREG-1537, and can be found in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession Numbers ML12156A069 and ML12156A075, respectively. The ISG provides guidance for applicants and the NRC staff related to licensing a heterogeneous or aqueous homogeneous non-power reactor as a utilization facility pursuant to Title 10 of the
The NRC maintains ADAMS, which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library at
Mr. Marcus Voth, Project Manager, Research and Test Reactor Licensing Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001; telephone at 301-415-1210 or email at
The NRC posts its issued staff guidance on the NRC external Web page (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Michael Raddatz, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 301-492-3108; or email to:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has conducted inspections of the Louisiana Energy Services (LES), LLC, National Enrichment Facility in Eunice, New Mexico, and has verified that cascades numbered 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, and 3.1 of the facility have been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the approved license. The NRC staff has prepared inspection reports documenting its findings in accordance with the requirements of the NRC Inspection Manual. As a result of these inspections, on March 14, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascades numbered 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5. On March 19, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 2.6. On March 27, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascades numbered 2.7 and 2.8. On May 24, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 1.9. On May 31, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 1.10. On June 27, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 1.11. On July 9, 2012 (clarified by letter July 16, 2012), the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 2.12. On August 9, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 1.12. On August 14, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 3.1. On August 24, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 2.11. Finally, on September 14, 2012, the Commission authorized the licensee to start operation of cascade number 2.10. The publication of this Notice satisfies the requirements of Title 10 of the
The introduction of uranium hexafluoride into any module of the National Enrichment Facility is not permitted until the Commission completes an operational readiness and management measures verification review to verify that management measures that ensure compliance with the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61 have been implemented and confirms that the facility has been constructed in accordance with the license and will be operated safely. Subsequent operational readiness and management measures verification reviews will continue throughout the various phases of plant construction and, upon completion of these subsequent phases, additional notices will be posted to verify that the phase in question has been constructed in accordance with the license and to acknowledge licensee readiness for operations.
Documents related to this action are available online at the NRC Library at
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 1, 2012 will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CME is proposing to make certain changes to the way CME values securities on deposit. The text of the proposed changes is available on the CME's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, CME 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. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME is proposing to issue an Advisory Notice that announces certain changes to the way CME will value securities on deposit. Under the proposed changes, CME will begin using the current market value, plus accrued interest, to value securities on deposit. CME currently excludes accrued interest from the value of securities on deposit. Therefore, with this adjustment, accrued interest will now be included in the market value of the security. The purpose of the adjustment is to harmonize valuations with existing industry conventions. CME intends to implement these changes beginning on December 3, 2012, subject to securing required regulatory approvals.
The proposed changes that will take effect are described in the CME Advisory Notice, available on the CME's Web site at
CME believes the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act. The proposed rules are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency. These changes would use the current market value, plus accrued interest, for securities on deposit at CME, which will better align CME's practices with the marketplace and expectations of its participants. The changes will therefore enhance CME's ability to manage the risks associated with discharging its responsibilities as a derivatives clearing organization and clearing agency. Because these changes will enhance CME's ability to manage its risks they are also designed to protect investors and the public interest and will help further safeguard customer funds held at the FCM level.
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-42 and should be submitted on or before November 20, 2012.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade units of Sprott Physical Platinum and Palladium Trust (the “Trust”) pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade units (“Units”) of the Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201.
Sprott Asset Management LP is the sponsor and manager of the Trust (the “Manager”),
According to the Registration Statement, the investment objective of the Trust is to invest and hold substantially all of its assets in physical platinum and palladium bullion. The Trust seeks to provide a convenient and exchange-traded investment alternative for investors interested in holding physical platinum and palladium bullion without the inconvenience that is typical of a direct investment in physical platinum and palladium bullion. The Trust intends to achieve its objective by investing primarily in long-term holdings of unencumbered, fully allocated physical platinum and palladium bullion and will not
The Exchange represents that the Units satisfy the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 and thereby qualify for listing on the Exchange.
According to the Registration Statement, platinum and palladium are two of six precious metals comprising the “Platinum Group Metals” (“PGM”). Platinum and palladium are the PGMs produced in the greatest quantities and are generally viewed as the most significant PGMs in the global marketplace. The other four PGMs (rhodium, ruthenium, iridium and osmium) are produced as co-products of platinum and palladium. PGMs have unique physical attributes, including powerful catalytic properties, strong conductivity and ductility, high levels of resistance to corrosion, strength, durability and high melting points.
PGMs are found primarily in South Africa and Russia. South Africa is the world's leading platinum producer and the second largest palladium producer.
Due to their rarity and relative inertness, platinum and palladium are considered precious metals. Total 2011 mine production of platinum and palladium was approximately 6.5 and 6.6 million ounces, respectively.
Physical platinum and palladium can be bought and sold through various intermediaries such as precious metal traders and various precious metal exchanges. Additionally, physical platinum and palladium coins and bars can also be purchased through government mints.
Futures on platinum and palladium are traded on two major exchanges: The New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”), and Tokyo Commodities Exchange (“TOCOM”). The NYMEX accounts for the majority of palladium futures trading volume and has seen increased levels of activity over the past five years. Smaller markets include Shanghai, Mumbai and Johannesburg. The platinum market traded 155 million ounces and the palladium market traded 105.5 million ounces in 2010.
The London Platinum and Palladium Market (“LPPM”) is a London-based trade association that acts as the coordinator for activities conducted on behalf of its members and other participants in the London platinum and palladium markets. The LPPM acts primarily in the function of establishing the Good Delivery Standards (“Good Delivery Standards”) for platinum and palladium in plate or ingot form and maintenance of the “London/Zurich Good Delivery Lists”, as described below; acts as coordinator for activities conducted on behalf of its members and other participants in the London platinum and palladium markets; and acts as the principal point of contact between the market and its regulators. Members of the LPPM act as the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market-makers for platinum and palladium.
In the OTC market, platinum and palladium that meet the specifications for weight, dimensions, fineness (or purity), identifying marks (including the assay stamp of an LPPM-acceptable refiner) and appearance set forth in the LPPM “London/Zurich Good Delivery List” are a standard “Good Delivery plate or ingot.” A Good Delivery plate or ingot must contain between 32.151 troy ounces and 192.904 troy ounces of platinum or palladium with a minimum fineness (or purity) of 999.5 parts per 1,000. A Good Delivery plate or ingot must also bear the stamp of one of the refiners listed on the LPPM-approved list.
According to the Registration Statement, gross platinum demand rose by 2% in 2011 to 8.1 million ounces largely as a result of heavy purchasing by the glass industry. The price of platinum fell to a two-year low of $1,364 by the end of 2011 but traded on average at $1,721 for the year as a whole, 7% higher than in 2010. The price of platinum has risen by 3% in 2012 and was $1,445 as at June 3, 2012.
Global mine production of platinum increased by 7% to 6.5 million ounces in 2011. From 2001 to 2011, the level of recycled platinum has increased by 1.5 million ounces, which equates to a compound annual growth rate of 14%. In 2011, 75% of global platinum mine production was from South Africa. The second largest producer in 2011 was Russia, at 13%.
The growth in platinum supply over the last four years has largely been due to a steady increase in the levels of recycled platinum and scrap platinum. In 2011, recycling of platinum rose by 12% to reach 2 million ounces, with 60% of recycled platinum derived from automobile catalytic converters (“Autocatalysts”) and 40% from jewellery. The growth in platinum recycling was driven primarily by higher returns of end-of-life vehicle catalysts. Scrap and recycled platinum constituted 24% of overall 2011 platinum supply.
According to the Registration Statement, demand for platinum is driven primarily by several industries and activities, which may be categorized as (in order of relative importance) the automotive sector; jewellery; other (non-automotive) industrial manufacturing; and investment. For example:
• Platinum is a required component in the manufacturing of Autocatalysts. Platinum is used to form the surface catalyst upon which critical chemical reactions occur, converting exhaust emissions into neutral compounds. Diesel-powered vehicles require platinum-based Autocatalysts, whereas gasoline vehicle manufacturers have the option of using palladium-based Autocatalysts. At present, there are no widely used substitutes for platinum or palladium used in Autocatalysts. Platinum demand for use in Autocatalysts was 3.1 million ounces in 2011, or 38% of global demand. The growth in global vehicle output in 2010 moderated in 2011. Estimated total vehicle production worldwide rose by around 2 million units to approximately 80 million units in 2011. This led to a
• The second largest source of demand for platinum in 2011 was jewellery manufacturing, which represented 31% of the global demand for platinum. Platinum is sought-after for its rarity, silvery-white lustre and resistance to wear and tarnish.
• Industrial manufacturing includes the chemical sector, the petroleum refining sector, the electrical sector, the glass manufacturing sector, the medical, biomedical and dental sectors, and other manufacturing sectors, such as turbines. Total non-automotive industrial demand for platinum jumped by 17% to 2.1 million ounces in 2011. Demand for platinum in industrial applications reached 2.1 million ounces. New capacity installations, together with pre-buying in anticipation of future growth, increased platinum demand in the glass sector by 44% to 555,000 ounces. Expansions in the petrochemical industry in developing markets and construction of new refining capacity in Europe and North America also drove up demand.
• The investment sector includes the investment and trading activities of both professional and private investors and speculators. These participants range from large hedge funds and mutual funds to day-traders on futures exchanges and retail-level coin collectors. Physically-backed investment demand, comprising coins, bars, investments held in allocated accounts, and exchange traded products, fell 30% to 460,000 ounces, representing approximately 6% of total reported demand in 2011. Inflows tended to coincide with periods of rising prices.
According to the Registration Statement, the palladium market was in a 1.3 million ounce surplus in 2011. Gross demand fell 13% to 8.5 million ounces due to sharply negative investment demand.
During 2011, 775,000 ounces of palladium were sold from Russian state inventories, although shipments from this source were the lowest in five years. The fall in Russian state stock shipments largely offset growth in output from North America and Zimbabwe as operations ramped up to full production. In aggregate, 2011 mine production and stock sales of palladium were flat at 7.4 million ounces compared to 2010.
During 2011, mine production of palladium was dominated by Russia and South Africa, which represented 41% and 39% of global production (excluding supply from Russia stock sales and recycled palladium), respectively. Mine production in 2011 was 6.6 million ounces, which compares to a 10-year average mine production of 6.8 million ounces.
The supply of scrap and recycled palladium has grown at a compound annual growth rate of 24% since 2001 and represented 24% of overall palladium supply in 2011. Seventy-one percent of recycled palladium came from Autocatalysts in 2011 and 20% came from waste electrical equipment.
According to the Registration Statement, demand for palladium is driven primarily by several industries and activities, which may be categorized as (in order of relative importance) the automotive sector; other (non-automotive) industrial manufacturing; and jewellery. For example:
• Palladium, like platinum, is a key component in the manufacturing of automobiles, primarily through its use in gasoline Autocatalysts. Like platinum, palladium can be used to form the surface catalyst upon which critical chemical reactions occur converting exhaust emissions into neutral compounds. In this regard, palladium is the only known substitute for platinum. For the past decade, the largest source of demand for palladium has consistently come from the auto industry (71% of 2011 demand). Given palladium's historically lower price compared to platinum, auto industry manufacturers have shifted from platinum to palladium where practical in Autocatalyst manufacturing. Demand for palladium in the automotive sector increased in 2011 by 8% over 2010 and, with the exception of the recession years of 2008 and 2009, has increased globally over the past nine years. Palladium demand in 2011 was driven by growth in vehicle output in all regions apart from Japan, and greater use of palladium in light duty diesel after-treatment systems.
• Industrial manufacturing includes demand primarily from the electronics, dental, and chemical industries. Electronics manufacturing includes palladium resistors and capacitors which are used in the manufacturing of circuit boards. Industrial demand for palladium strengthened overall in 2011, increasing by 15,000 ounces to 2.5 million ounces. Rising levels of personal wealth in China and other emerging markets increased the demand for synthetic fibres and plastics, leading in turn to the expansion of bulk chemical production in 2011, which require palladium-containing catalysts in the manufacturing process and plastics. Recovering demand in export markets as well as government strategy in China to increase domestic consumption led to increased demand for process catalyst charges.
• In 2011, jewellery comprised 6.0% of the total demand for palladium. Purchasing of palladium by the jewellery industry globally declined by 90,000 ounces in 2011 to 505,000 ounces, as the metal suffered from a lack of positioning and effective marketing in China. Palladium is sought-after for use in jewellery since it does not tarnish or wear out.
Elevated palladium prices for much of 2011 put many investors in exchange- traded funds in a position to sell at a profit, resulting in total disinvestment of 565,000 ounces in 2011.
According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will not hold or trade in commodity futures contracts regulated by the Commodity Exchange Act, as administered by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). According to the Registration Statement, the Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act,