Agricultural Marketing Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Health Resources and Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
The Board is delaying the effective date for implementation of certain provisions of its final rule amending the Board's Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) published in the
The effective date of amendments to 12 CFR 204.2(z), (ff), (gg) and (hh); §§ 204.5(b)(2), (d)(4)(i), (e)(1) and (e)(2); 204.6(a) and (b); and 204.10(b)(1), (b)(3), and (c), published April 12, 2012, at 77 FR 21846, is delayed from January 24, 2013, until June 27, 2013.
Sophia Allison, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-3565, or Kara Handzlik, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3852, Legal Division; or Margaret Gillis DeBoer, Assistant Director, (202) 452-3139, or Karen Brooks, Senior Business Analyst (202) 973-6189, Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.
The Board published its final rule amending Regulation D, 12 CFR part 204, on April 12, 2012, (77 FR 21846) to implement the following four simplifications related to the administration of reserve requirements:
1. Create a common two-week maintenance period for all depository institutions;
2. Create a penalty-free band around reserve balance requirements in place of using carryover and routine penalty waivers;
3. Discontinue as-of adjustments related to deposit report revisions and replace all other as-of adjustments with direct compensation; and
4. Eliminate the contractual clearing balance program.
The Board announced in the final rule that it would implement the elimination of the contractual clearing balance program and the use of as-of adjustments earlier than it would implement the common maintenance period and the penalty-free band. The Board implemented the elimination of the contractual clearing balance program and the issuance of as-of adjustments effective July 12, 2012. The Board announced January 24, 2013, as the implementation date for the common two-week maintenance period, the penalty-free band, and the elimination of carryover and routine penalty waivers, as reflected in the following revised sections of Regulation D: §§ 204.2(z), (ff), (gg) and (hh); §§ 204.5(b)(2), (d)(4)(i), (e)(1) and (e)(2); §§ 204.6 (a) and (b); and §§ 204.10 (b)(1), (b)(3), and (c). The Board also announced that it would provide public notice no later than November 1, 2012, if the January 24, 2013, date will be delayed.
The Board is delaying until June 27, 2013, the January 24, 2013, date to allow the Federal Reserve to further develop and test the automated systems necessary to support the common two-week maintenance period, the penalty-free band, and the elimination of carry-over and routine penalty waivers. Further development and testing are necessary to ensure the effective operation of the automated systems. This delay will also facilitate a smooth transition for affected institutions by allowing them more time to develop their internal systems and prepare for implementation of these revisions. Moreover, the delay will not prejudice or create additional burden for affected institutions or Federal Reserve Banks.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency may, for good cause, find that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). As noted above, the Board previously announced that it may delay the January 24, 2013, effective date for certain provisions of the final rule but would provide notice of such a delay by November 1, 2012. Moreover, the revised effective date does not impose additional burden on affected institutions and will provide those institutions with additional time for implementation. For these reasons, along with the reasons noted above, the Board has determined that there is good cause to find that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As noted above, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.
The Board has reviewed the final rule in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320). No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 25, 2012.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, us, our, or we) issues this final rule to amend our regulations governing investments held by institutions of the Farm Credit System (FCS or System), as well as related regulations. This final rule strengthens our regulations governing investment management and interest rate risk management; reduces regulatory burden for investments that fail to meet eligibility criteria after purchase; and makes other changes that will enhance the safety and soundness of System institutions.
This regulation will be effective 30 days after publication in the
The objectives of this rule are to:
• Ensure that Farm Credit banks
• Strengthen the safety and soundness of System institutions;
• Reduce regulatory burden with respect to investments that fail to meet eligibility criteria after purchase; and
• Enhance the ability of the System to supply credit to agriculture and aquatic producers by ensuring adequate availability to funds.
Congress created the System as a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) to provide a permanent, stable, and reliable source of credit and related services to American agricultural and aquatic producers. Farm Credit banks obtain funds that they and System associations use to provide credit and related services primarily through the issuance of Systemwide debt securities.
We adopted our last major revisions to our investment regulations in 1999 and amended them in a more limited manner in 2005. Since 1999, the marketplace pertaining to investments has changed significantly. Innovations in investment products have led to their increasing complexity, and investors need to have greater expertise to fully understand them. In addition, the financial crisis that began in 2007 resulted in numerous investment downgrades and the loss of billions of dollars by financial institutions. While System banks suffered considerably less stress during the crisis than many other financial institutions, they did experience numerous downgrades and some losses on individual investments.
In 2010, we issued FCA Bookletter BL-064, which provided clarification and guidance regarding our regulations and expectations with respect to the key elements of a robust investment asset management framework that institutions should establish to prudently manage their investments in changing markets.
On August 18, 2011, we published a proposed rule to amend FCA's regulations governing System investments.
This first installment of final regulations will revise the following regulations:
• § 615.5131—Definitions;
• § 615.5132—Investment Purposes;
• § 615.5133—Investment Management;
• § 615.5136—Emergencies Impeding Normal Access of Farm Credit Banks to Capital Markets;
• § 615.5143—Management of Ineligible Investments and Reservation of Authority to Require Divestiture;
• § 615.5174—Farmer Mac Securities;
• § 615.5180—Bank Interest Rate Risk Management Program; and
• 615.5182—Interest Rate Risk Management by Associations and Other Farm Credit System Institutions Other Than Banks.
In addition, we are making minor technical conforming revisions to § 615.5140 and to § 615.5201, which is the Definitions section in our capital adequacy regulations.
Finally, we are deleting the following existing provisions:
• § 615.5135—Management of Interest Rate Risk (we are incorporating its provisions, as amended, into § 615.5180);
• § 615.5141—Stress Tests for Mortgage Securities (we are incorporating its provisions, as amended, into §§ 615.5133(f)(1)(iii) and 615.5133(f)(4)); and
• § 615.5181—Bank Interest Rate Risk Management Program (we are incorporating its provisions, as amended, into § 615.5180).
We intend to address in one or more future rulemakings regulations covering all the areas of the proposed rule not covered in this final rule, including investment eligibility (including revised creditworthiness requirements) and association investments. The regulations that we proposed to revise but that we are not revising at this time include:
• § 615.5140—Eligible Investments (except for minor technical changes); and
• § 615.5142—Association Investments.
This final regulation codifies much of the guidance that was contained in BL-064. In many areas, however, the regulation imposes requirements that go beyond the Bookletter's guidance. Although the Bookletter may continue to provide useful guidance, institutions must be sure that they are complying with the requirements in this regulation.
Because we are not at this time finalizing revisions to § 615.5142, governing association investments, the guidance on association investments in BL-064, which clarifies existing § 615.5142, will continue to be relevant. In addition, institutions should be mindful of our Informational Memorandum on Association Investments dated May 16, 2012, which reminds banks and associations of their obligations under § 615.5142.
FCA received comment letters from two Farm Credit banks—CoBank, ACB and the Farm Credit Bank of Texas. FCA also received comment letters from four Farm Credit associations—Colonial Farm Credit, ACA, FCS Financial, ACA, Farm Credit Services of Mid-America, ACA, and AgStar Financial Services, ACA. In addition, the Farm Credit Council (Council) submitted comments that were developed with input from a workgroup that includes financial officers from several associations, all Farm Credit banks, and the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (Funding Corporation). Finally, we also considered a comment letter the Council submitted to FCA on a similar proposed rule governing the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac)
We received many constructive comments on the proposed rule. In general, the commenters stated that several of the provisions would enhance investment management at System institutions. They also stated, however, that many provisions of the proposed rule were inordinately and unnecessarily prescriptive.
The Council also commented generally that the rule is unnecessary in light of FCA Bookletter BL-064. In response, we believe it is prudent to codify the bookletter's guidance into regulation. In addition, as stated above, in many areas the regulation imposes requirements that go beyond the bookletter's guidance. Accordingly, this regulation is necessary notwithstanding FCA Bookletter BL-064.
We will address each specific comment received in our discussion of the regulation provision to which the comment relates. Those areas of the proposed rule not receiving comment or receiving positive comments are finalized as proposed unless otherwise discussed in this preamble. Throughout this regulation, we make minor technical, clarifying, and non-substantive language changes that we do not specifically discuss in this preamble.
We proposed to amend § 615.5131 to add definitions for the terms Government agency and Government-sponsored agency. The Council noted that FCA had already defined these terms in our capital adequacy regulation at § 615.5201. The Council stated that FCA and the other banking regulators “essentially define these terms identically” for capital purposes, and it asked us to conform the definitions.
We note that the definitions of these terms in the capital regulations of FCA and of other banking regulators such as the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) contain technical differences from one another.
Section 615.5131 defines Government agency as the United States Government or an agency, instrumentality, or corporation of the United States Government whose obligations are fully and explicitly insured or guaranteed as to the timely repayment of principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Section 615.5131 defines Government-sponsored agency as an agency, instrumentality, or corporation chartered or established to serve public purposes specified by the United States Congress but whose obligations are not fully and explicitly insured or guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. This definition includes GSEs such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), as well as Federal agencies, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, that issue obligations that are not explicitly guaranteed by the Government of the United States' full faith and credit.
Section 615.5132 permits each Farm Credit bank to hold eligible investments, for specified purposes,
In our proposed rule, we asked whether the 35-percent investment limit should be raised. Commenters responded that this limit was appropriate, as long as our regulations permitted the exclusion of certain investments. We discuss these comments, and our responses, below.
In § 615.5132(b)(1), we adopt as final our proposal to permit Farm Credit banks to exclude investments pledged to meet margin requirements for derivative transactions (collateral) when calculating the 35-percent investment limit under paragraph (a). We note that investments that are pledged as collateral do not count toward a Farm Credit bank's compliance with its liquidity requirements.
Some commenters requested that we also exclude certain other investments from the 35-percent limit. They requested that we exclude securities purchased and designated for the primary purpose of posting collateral for derivative positions, even if the collateral is returned or the securities are never posted. These commenters stated that including these securities in the 35-percent limit would require a bank to maintain a cushion under the limit to accommodate the possibility of return, thereby limiting the amount of other investments it can hold to manage its liquidity position and derivative counterparty exposures.
Commenters also requested that we exclude Treasury securities from the 35-percent limit. They stated that including Treasury securities in the limit crowds out other higher-yielding, high-quality liquid investments. Thus, their inclusion in the limit creates an economic constraint and disincentive to holding Treasury securities, even though they are the most liquid and marketable investment. They requested that we treat Treasury securities like cash and exclude them from the 35-percent limit.
Finally, the Council requested that investment securities pledged in secured borrowing relationships be excluded from the 35-percent limit. The Council cited State Ag-Linked lending programs and repurchase agreements as examples of these secured borrowing relationships. Under both arrangements, according to the Council, the pledging of securities acts as an alternative that provides cash for operations without the issuance of new Federal Farm Credit Banks debt obligations. Under § 615.5134(b), these investments may not be counted in the liquidity reserve because they are not unencumbered. The Council asserts that excluding pledged securities from the 35-percent limit would be consistent with use of the securities as an alternative method to secure financing and their treatment under the FCA regulatory liquidity measurement.
We decline to exclude these investments from the investment limit on a blanket basis. We view these types of transactions as part of a Farm Credit bank's normal cash management operations. Thus, under normal conditions, we expect each Farm Credit bank to manage the level of its investments within FCA's portfolio size limits to ensure regulatory compliance. As discussed below, however, we are providing additional flexibility to each bank in the management of its investment portfolio by revising the regulation to allow compliance with the limit on a 30-day average daily balance (ADB) basis rather than on a daily basis; this change will enable a bank to exceed the investment limit temporarily, as long as its 30-day ADB is below the limit. Moreover, final § 615.5132(b)(2) permits the exclusion from the investment limit of other investments as FCA determines is appropriate.
In order to provide Farm Credit banks with additional flexibility to manage their investment portfolio, we are modifying how the 35-percent investment limit is calculated in paragraph (a).
The numerator (investments) will be calculated as a 30-day ADB of investments measured at amortized cost, excluding interest and net of all collateral pledged for derivative purposes and any other investments for which FCA has approved exclusions. The calculation of the denominator (total outstanding loans) remains unchanged, although the regulation makes explicit our existing interpretation that total loans include accrued interest and do not include allowance for loan loss.
30-day ADB of investments as of January 31, 2012 divided by the 90-day ADB of total outstanding loans as of December 31, 2011.
30-day ADB of investments as of March 31, 2012 divided by the 90-day ADB of total outstanding loans as of March 31, 2012.
We believe this modification of the 35-percent calculation will provide additional flexibility for Farm Credit banks in managing their investment portfolios. Because FCA will evaluate compliance at month end and on a 30-day ADB rather than the actual daily balance, a bank that receives a large amount of returned collateral that temporarily increases its investment portfolio above 35 percent on a particular day, for example, should still be below the 35-percent ADB—unless it is managing its investment portfolio too close to the 35-percent limit.
Effective investment management requires financial institutions to establish policies that include risk limits, approved mechanisms for identifying, measuring, and reporting exposures, and strong corporate governance. The recent crisis and its lingering effects have re-emphasized the importance of sound investment management, and we believe that strengthened regulation would further ensure the safe and sound management of investments. Accordingly, we are making significant changes to § 615.5133, which governs investment management.
One association commented that the economic impact of certain proposals on small associations could be profound, because they cannot afford a bank's level of investment management expertise. The association recognizes that association boards and management have a fiduciary duty to manage investments in a safe and sound manner, but it stated that it depends on its funding bank, in its approval role, to provide advice regarding unwise investment decisions. In addition, according to the association commenter, requiring associations to add unnecessary investment management committees, policies, analyses, and reports increases expenses and decreases the benefits of investments.
Revised § 615.5133(b), which we discuss in greater detail below, requires investment policies to be sufficiently detailed, consistent with, and appropriate for the amounts, types, and risk characteristics of an institution's investments.
A bank's approval serves as an additional safeguard for an association's investments, but the association must nevertheless have the requisite expertise to manage the investments that it holds.
The Council commented that the proposed requirement that the board (or a designated committee of the board) must, at least annually, review and “affirmatively validate” the sufficiency of its investment policies is overly prescriptive, burdensome, and unclear. We agree that a review requirement is sufficient and delete “affirmatively validate” from the final rule.
We also move to this section and clarify a documentation requirement that we had proposed in § 615.5133(b). We had proposed to require institutions to document in their records or board minutes any analyses used in formulating their policies or amendments to the policies. The Council stated that suggesting board minutes as a place to document this analysis is burdensome and does not enhance the investment management process. We do not agree that suggesting board minutes as an optional location for documentation is burdensome. Nevertheless, we revise the last sentence of § 615.5133(a) to require that any changes to the policies must be documented, without specifying a location.
The revisions in this paragraph are otherwise unchanged from the proposed rule. All other comments supported the proposed revisions in this provision.
The Council commented that the revisions in this proposed paragraph appeared reasonable overall. We move from § 615.5133(f)(1) a sentence requiring investment policies to fully address the extent of pre-purchase analysis that management must perform for various classes of investments. Otherwise, except for several minor non-substantive technical changes, the revisions in this paragraph are unchanged from the proposed rule.
We received comment on the clarity of the proposed language in this provision. Accordingly, we are clarifying the requirements in final § 615.5133(c) to require that investment policies must include concentration limits to ensure prudent diversification of credit, market, and liquidity risk in the investment portfolio.
In addition, our proposed rule, as well as our existing rule, provides that risk limits must be based on an institution's institutional objectives, capital position, and risk tolerance. In the final rule, we are requiring that risk limits be based on all relevant factors, including an institution's institutional objectives, capital position, earnings, and quality and reliability of risk management systems. In addition, in light of our relocation of our interest rate risk management requirements to another subpart of these regulations (discussed below), we are making explicit that risk limits must also consider the interest rate risk management program required for banks and associations.
Existing § 615.5133(c)(1)(ii) requires an institution's board to review annually the investment policy criteria for selecting securities firms and to determine whether to continue the institution's existing relationships with them. To reduce regulatory burden, we proposed to permit a designated committee of the board to review the criteria and to determine whether to continue existing relationships, but the board would have had to approve any changes to the criteria or to the existing relationships.
Both the Council and a bank objected to the existing requirement that the board must determine whether to continue an institution's existing relationships with securities firms. They commented that this requirement is confusing, creates an excessive burden, and results in an unnecessary distraction for the board.
We agree that as long as an institution's board (or a designated committee) reviews the selection criteria on an annual basis, and the board approves any changes to the criteria, the board does not need to be involved in the approval of the relationships. Accordingly, we have deleted the existing and proposed requirements of board involvement in an institution's relationships with securities firms.
Existing § 615.5133(c)(1)(iii) requires investment policies to establish collateral margin requirements on repurchase agreements. We proposed to require institutions to regularly mark the collateral to market and ensure appropriate controls are maintained over collateral held. We received positive comments on this provision and adopt it as proposed.
Existing § 615.5133(c)(2) requires an institution's board to establish market risk limits in accordance with our regulations and other policies. In our proposed rule, we specifically identified these other regulations as those governing stress testing and interest rate risk.
The Council objected to the proposed revision, stating that it did not appear to add a new requirement but that it could be used to impose duplicative requirements. In addition, the Council vigorously objected to the proposed and existing reference to “other policies”; because these policies have not been subject to notice and comment rulemaking, we cannot require compliance with them in this regulation.
In response to these comments, the final regulation, like the existing regulation, requires investment policies to set market risk limits for specific types of investments and for the investment portfolio.
Existing § 615.5133(e)(2) requires System institutions to establish and maintain a separation of duties and supervision between personnel who execute investment transactions and personnel who approve, revaluate, and oversee investments. Proposed § 615.5133(e)(2) would have added to the list of personnel whose duties and supervision would have had to be separated from personnel who execute investment transactions. These additional personnel would have been those who post accounting entries, reconcile trade confirmations, and report compliance with investment policy.
Both the Council and a bank objected to this proposed revision as overly prescriptive. In response, rather than itemizing all of the possible personnel functions, final § 615.5133(e)(2) provides that System institutions must establish and maintain a separation of duties between personnel who supervise or execute investment transactions and personnel who supervise or engage in all other investment-related functions. These other investment-related functions
Proposed § 615.5133(e)(4) would have added a new requirement that System institutions must implement effective internal audit programs to review, at least annually, their investment controls, processes, and compliance with FCA regulations and other regulatory guidance. Internal audit programs would have had to specifically include a review of the process for ensuring all investments, at the time of purchase, were eligible and suitable for purchase under the boards' investment policies.
The Council and both bank commenters stated that this requirement was too prescriptive and eliminated the flexibility that is necessary for an institution's internal auditors to establish its own risk-based approach to audits. An association encouraged FCA to set a de minimis investment portfolio amount relative to an association's total assets or total capital; investment portfolios under this amount would not be subject to annual risk assessments.
Final § 615.5133(e)(4) requires institutions to implement effective internal audit programs to review, at least annually, their investment management functions, controls, processes, and compliance with FCA regulations. The scope of the annual review must be appropriate for the size, risk, and complexity of the investment portfolio. Thus, while the final rule retains the annual audit requirement, it provides flexibility in determining the scope of the audit.
While the final rule allows for flexibility depending on the nature of an institution's investment portfolio, there is no bright line de minimis portfolio size that would permit an institution not to engage in risk assessment. As stated above, an association must comply with all the requirements in § 615.5133 if the level or type of its investments could expose its capital to material loss. Each association must have the ability to manage the investments that it holds.
In addition to the regulatory requirements in § 615.5133(e)(4), the guidance provided in BL-064 continues to be relevant for institutions in their development of internal audit processes.
As proposed, the final rule adds a new § 615.5133(f) that covers due diligence. This provision combines in one location the requirements governing securities valuation and those governing stress testing that are in existing § 615.5133(f) and § 615.5141, respectively.
In addition to the substantive changes to specific provisions, which we discuss below, we make extensive organizational and technical changes to make the structure and approach of this rule more similar to the rule governing Farmer Mac. We also make a number of minor technical and non-substantive changes to clarify the requirements.
Proposed § 615.5133(f)(1) would have required a System institution, before it purchased an investment, to conduct sufficient due diligence to determine whether the investment was eligible and “suitable” for purchase under its board's investment policies. The institution would have been required to document this assessment.
This proposed requirement is retained in new § 615.5133(f)(1)(i), with minor clarifications. Since we had used the term “suitable” to mean an investment complied with the board's investment policies, we simplify the regulation by eliminating that term and instead requiring that an institution determine whether an investment complies with those policies. We also clarify that an institution must determine whether an investment is for an authorized purpose.
The Council and a bank commented that eligibility and the other pre-purchase assessments are often established for a class or segment of securities by specifying the criteria (credit risk, liquidity, market risk, etc.) that make a class of securities eligible and suitable per se, and they requested clarification that these pre-purchase assessments may be defined for segments or classes of securities that meet appropriate criteria rather than on a security-by-security basis. We note that the regulation does not prohibit the establishment of criteria for various classes or segments of investments, as long as an institution adequately documents its assessments.
We also added a sentence to § 615.5133(f)(1)(i) specifically authorizing an institution, with board approval, to hold investments that do not comply with its investment policies. This addition recognizes that such decisions are within the discretion of the board's business judgment.
Existing § 615.5133(f)(1) requires a System institution to verify the value of a security that it plans to purchase, other than a new issue, with a source that is independent of the broker, dealer, counterparty, or other intermediary to the transaction. We proposed no substantive changes to the requirement.
The Council objected to this existing requirement, commenting that verifying value from an independent source is not realistic for investments of tranches of collateralized mortgage obligations, including planned amortization class bonds, purchased in the primary market. The Council stated that these securities are generally unique in nature and their value, when newly created, will be impossible to verify with a third party prior to purchase.
In response, we reiterate that the third party pre-purchase valuation requirement explicitly excludes new issues. Accordingly, institutions need not seek third party pre-purchase valuation for new issues.
This valuation requirement and exclusion for new issues is retained in new § 615.5133(f)(1)(ii).
Like proposed § 615.5133(f)(1), new § 615.5133(f)(1)(iii) provides that an institution's assessment of each investment at the time of purchase must at a minimum include an evaluation of credit risk, liquidity risk, market risk, interest rate risk, and the underlying collateral of the investment.
The Council, a bank, and an association commented that while a comprehensive level of due diligence is appropriate for more risky and complex instruments such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS), such due diligence would be excessive and burdensome for instruments such as Treasury securities, federal funds investments, short-term commercial paper, discount notes, bullet bonds, and other less complex
The final rule specifies the risks that must be assessed but does not specify how these risks must be assessed. We explain in this preamble our expectations for how System institutions should assess their risk.
In their assessment of credit risk, System institutions should consider the nature and type of underlying collateral, credit enhancements, complexity of structure, and any other available indicators of the risk of default.
In their assessment of liquidity risk, System institutions should consider the investment structure, depth of the market, and ability to liquidate the position under a variety of economic scenarios and market conditions.
In their assessment of market risk, System institutions should consider how various market stress scenarios including, at a minimum, potential changes in interest rates and market conditions (such as market perceptions of creditworthiness), are likely to affect the cash flow and price of the instrument.
Proposed § 615.5133(f)(2) had required institutions to stress test all investments at the time of purchase. Commenters stated that while a pre-purchase stress-testing requirement is appropriate for complex securities such as MBS, asset-backed securities (ABS), and other non-Government guaranteed investments, it is inappropriate to require pre-purchase stress testing on instruments with low price sensitivity, such as Government-guaranteed investments and non-amortizing, bullet-type investments maturing within 1 year. Moreover, an association requested the establishment of a de minimis limit for stress testing even of higher-risk, more complex securities.
We agree that stress testing lower risk, less complex investments, such as overnight securities and commercial paper, may not provide value and may create excessive burden. Accordingly, final § 615.5133(f)(1)(iii) requires an institution to stress test before purchase only investments that are structured or that have uncertain cash flows, including all MBS and ABS. The stress test must be commensurate with the risk and complexity of the investment and must enable the institution to determine that the investment does not expose its capital, earnings, and liquidity to risks that exceed the risks specified in its investment policies.
We do not establish a de minimis amount below which stress testing need not be performed, because we believe that all high-risk, complex instruments must be stress tested. We note that final § 615.5133(f)(4) requires stress tests to be comprehensive and appropriate for the risk profile of each institution. Moreover, that provision also requires that the methodology an institution uses be appropriate for the complexity, structure, and cash flow of the investments in its portfolio.
We retain the requirements of the first sentence of existing § 615.5133(f)(2), with slight wording changes.
We move the second sentence of existing § 615.5133(f)(2) to § 615.5133(f)(3), with several changes. First, we delete the existing ongoing requirement to evaluate price sensitivity to market interest rates because that is adequately addressed in final § 615.5180(c)(3). Second, rather than requiring institutions to evaluate credit quality, we are requiring institutions to establish and maintain processes to monitor and evaluate changes in credit quality. Finally, we are retaining the existing requirement that institutions must analyze credit risk on an ongoing basis, rather than monthly, as we had proposed.
An association stated that it supported the proposed requirement to evaluate the credit quality of investments, provided fixed-rate, Government-guaranteed investments are excluded. We do not exclude these investments from this requirement because, like any other investments, the credit quality of Government-guaranteed investments can change over time.
Final § 615.5133(f)(4)(i) imposes requirements regarding quarterly stress testing. The technical changes we made from proposed § 615.5133(f)(2)(ii) are not material. These changes consist of clarifying the language and relocating language from proposed § 615.5133(f)(2)(iii) that is more logically located here.
One of the bank commenters agreed that a properly structured and documented quarterly stress test can provide useful information on capital, earnings, and liquidity risk relative to changes in market value of the entire portfolio, and it stated that the parameters an individual institution sets for the quarterly stress-testing analysis of its entire investment portfolio as a whole should be sufficient to analyze the level of risk contributed by investments.
We do not believe that stress testing an institution's entire portfolio as a whole is sufficient to analyze the risk of investments. It is critical to know individual results. Otherwise, risks could be offsetting each other, resulting in a portfolio-wide test that shows little risk, yet has pockets of investments that may exhibit significant risk. Accordingly, both proposed § 615.5133(f)(2)(ii) and final § 615.5133(f)(4)(i) require institutions to stress test their entire investment portfolio, including stress tests of all investments individually and stress tests of the portfolio as a whole.
Final § 615.5133(f)(4)(ii) sets forth a methodology that applies to both pre-purchase and quarterly stress testing. Except for minor technical changes, it is identical to proposed § 615.5133(f)(2)(iii).
As proposed, because all banks currently use the alternative stress test and the Council believes that they have the capability and sophistication to develop their own stress test processes, we eliminate the existing standardized stress test option.
We redesignate existing § 615.5133(f)(3) as § 615.5133(f)(5) and change the word “security” to “investment.”
We proposed revisions to § 615.5133(g), which specifies information that management must report to the board or a board committee each quarter. Proposed § 615.5133(g)(1) retained the general quarterly reporting requirements from existing § 615.5133(g) but added to and modified them to strengthen the overall reporting requirements.
The Council and a bank commented that the board reporting requirements were exceedingly prescriptive and limiting of the board's authority to direct management, and they requested that the provisions be generalized and simply require that the board receive a
With one exception that we discuss below and minor technical changes, we are finalizing all of the general quarterly reporting requirements of § 615.5133(g)(1) (redesignated as § 615.5133(g)) that we proposed. We believe this level of reporting is necessary to ensure an institution's board has the information it needs about the institution's investments. The one proposed requirement that we are not adopting in final § 615.5133(g) is that we are not requiring institutions to report on the results of their quarterly stress tests. We expect, however, that institutions will report on stress tests results that do not comply with their investment policies.
We are including in final § 615.5133(g) the reporting requirements that were contained in proposed § 615.5143(c), governing management of ineligible investments, because we believe it is more logical to have all board reporting requirements in one provision of the regulations. We make technical, but not substantive, changes to these requirements.
Proposed § 615.5133(g)(2) would have required an institution to provide immediate notification to its board of directors or to a designated board committee if its portfolio exceeded the quarterly stress-test parameters defined in its board policy. The Council expressed concern that the term “immediate” is vague, and it requested that FCA require notification to be completed “in a reasonable manner” as the board may direct.
Since exceeding a board policy's stress test parameters is not a regulatory violation, we have decided not to require board notification if this occurs. Nevertheless, we encourage each institution's board to require that it be notified of such a situation, because it could lead to serious risk exposures for the institution.
Our proposed rule recommended, but did not propose to require, that institutions develop an investment plan and an investment oversight committee. Three commenters opposed a requirement for an investment plan or investment committee, stating that institutions' current practices already achieve the purposes of the plans and committees. Because this may be true for some institutions, we do not impose these as requirements. We continue to believe, however, that each institution that maintains an investment portfolio should consider whether it could benefit from the development of an investment plan and the establishment of an investment committee. The preamble to our proposed rule discusses the benefits of these plans and committees. We also note that the Federal Reserve published a proposed rule (77 FR 594, January 5, 2012) that would require publicly traded bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more to establish and maintain an enterprise-wide risk committee of the board of directors. Some System banks have already begun to or have implemented such committees.
We are relocating the requirements of existing § 615.5135 to revised § 615.5180 in part 615 subpart G of our regulations, because we had other interest rate risk requirements in subpart G and it was logical to locate all of these requirements together. We will discuss the changes made to § 615.5180, and to other provisions in subpart G, below.
Final § 615.5136, which is very similar to what we proposed, provides that an emergency shall be deemed to exist whenever a financial, economic, agricultural, or national defense, or other crisis could impede the normal access of Farm Credit banks to the capital markets. Whenever the FCA determines, after consultations with the Funding Corporation to the extent practicable, that such an emergency exists, the FCA Board may, in its sole discretion, adopt a resolution that:
• Modifies the amount, qualities, and types of eligible investments that banks are authorized to hold pursuant to § 615.5132;
• Modifies or waives the liquidity requirement(s) in § 615.5134; and/or
• Authorizes other actions as deemed appropriate.
The revisions in our proposal, which we itemized in the preamble to the proposed rule, provide additional flexibility to the resolution that the FCA Board may adopt. The Council supported these revisions. The final rule adds the catch-all “other crisis” that could impede normal access to the capital markets.
We make only minor technical changes to this provision. We delete the reference to divestiture in existing § 615.5140(a)(4), because we no longer require divestiture of investments that were eligible when purchased, and the treatment of investments that were ineligible when purchased is specified in § 615.5143(a). We also delete the references to stress testing mortgage securities in existing § 615.5140(a)(5), because new § 615.5133(f) sets forth stress-testing requirements for investments. Finally, we make a slight formatting change to § 615.5140(a) to clarify its requirements.
As proposed, we remove this stand-alone, stress-testing section from our regulations, because we have included stress-testing requirements in final § 615.5133(f)(1)(iii) and (f)(4).
Existing § 615.5143 requires an institution to dispose of an investment that is ineligible
New § 615.5143(b) no longer requires a System institution to divest of (or to receive approval of a divestiture plan for) an investment that was eligible when purchased but no longer satisfies the eligibility criteria.
The proposed rule would have required an institution to notify FCA “promptly” if an investment no longer satisfies the eligibility criteria. The Council commented that it was unsure what “prompt” meant in the context of the rule, and it stated that notification is redundant and unnecessary given the requirements of the regulation and the ongoing nature of the FCA's examination function. If FCA retained this requirement, the Council suggested a 60-day calendar notice.
In response to this comment, we make the notification period 15 calendar days after the System institution determines
In addition, in the final rule as in the proposed, the institution is subject to the following requirements:
• It must not use the investment to satisfy its liquidity requirement(s) under § 615.5134;
• It must continue to include the investment in the § 615.5132 investment portfolio limit calculation;
• It may continue to include the investment as collateral under § 615.5050 and net collateral under § 615.5301(c) at the lower of cost or market value; and
• It must develop a plan to reduce the risk arising from the investment.
The proposed rule would have required notification to FCA when an investment that satisfied the regulatory eligibility criteria was not suitable because it did not satisfy the risk tolerance established in the institution's required board policy, and the investment would have been subject to requirements regarding exclusion from the liquidity reserve, inclusion in the investment portfolio limit, inclusion in collateral and net collateral, and the development of a risk reduction plan. We are deleting this notification requirement, as well as the other requirements, from the final rule because we do not want to create a disincentive for a System institution to establish a risk tolerance that is stricter than FCA's regulatory eligibility criteria. Under the final rule, a System institution does not have to notify the FCA when an investment that satisfies FCA's regulatory eligibility criteria does not satisfy its own risk tolerance, nor is the investment subject to the other requirements.
As we proposed, final § 615.5143(a) provides that an investment that does not satisfy the regulatory eligibility criteria at the time of purchase is ineligible. Under the final rule (as under the existing regulation), System institutions may not purchase ineligible investments. If a System institution does purchase an ineligible investment, it must notify the FCA within 15 calendar days after determining that the investment was ineligible and must divest of the investment no later than 60 calendar days after the determination unless we approve, in writing, a plan that authorizes divestiture over a longer period of time. In addition, in the final rule as in the proposed, until the institution divests of the investment:
• It must not be used to satisfy the institution's liquidity requirement(s) under § 615.5134;
• It must continue to be included in the § 615.5132 investment portfolio limit calculation; and
• It must be excluded as collateral under § 615.5050 and net collateral under § 615.5301(c).
Although it is not stated in the regulation, we clarify here than an acceptable divestiture plan would have to require a System institution to dispose of the investment as quickly as possible without substantial financial loss. The plan would also have to contain sufficient analysis to support retention of the investment, including its effect on the institution's capital, earnings, liquidity, and collateral position. Our decision would not be based solely on financial loss and would include consideration of all circumstances surrounding the purchase.
In addition, we emphasize that any purchase of an ineligible investment would indicate weaknesses in a System institution's internal controls and due diligence and would trigger increased FCA oversight if it occurs. We expect such a purchase to occur rarely, if ever. For this reason, we are retaining the divestiture requirements from the existing and proposed rules, despite the Council's and a bank commenter's request that we treat investments that are ineligible when purchased in the same manner as we treat investments that are eligible when purchased but that subsequently fail to meet the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, in response to the Council's comment that this provision essentially authorizes System institutions to purchase ineligible investments that could be held for 60 calendar days, we emphasize that this provision does not authorize such a purchase. As stated, if a System institution makes such a purchase, it should expect increased FCA oversight of its internal controls and due diligence process as well as enforcement actions as appropriate.
Proposed § 615.5143(c) would have required each institution to report to its board at least quarterly regarding investments that were ineligible when purchased and investments that were eligible when purchased but that no longer satisfy the eligibility criteria. As discussed above, we have moved these reporting requirements to § 615.5133(g) so that all board reporting requirements for investments are in one place.
Finally, § 615.5143(d) reserves FCA's authority to require an institution to divest of any investment at any time for failure to comply with § 615.5132(a) or § 615.5142 (as applicable) or for safety and soundness purposes. Although we did not propose failure to comply with the permissible investment purposes specified in § 615.5132(a) and § 615.5142 as a basis for requiring divestiture, this change merely makes explicit our implicit authority to require divestiture of an investment that does not comply with our investment regulations. The timeframe FCA sets would consider the expected loss on the transaction (or transactions) and the effect on a System institution's financial condition and performance. Because the final rule would not require divestiture of any investment that was eligible when purchased, FCA is making express our authority to require divestiture of investments when necessary. We received no comments on our proposed reservation of authority.
We proposed changes to § 615.5174(d), governing stress testing of Farmer Mac securities, which Farm Credit banks, associations, and service corporations are permitted to purchase and hold for the purpose of managing credit and interest rate risk and furthering their mission to finance agriculture. For the reason discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we proposed to remove the requirement that a System institution must subject Farmer Mac securities backed by loans that the institution originated to the stress testing applicable to investments. If a System institution purchases a Farmer Mac security from another System institution or from outside the System, however, the security would remain subject to the stress testing applicable to investments. Because we proposed to eliminate our divestiture requirement for other investments that fail a stress test, we also proposed to eliminate that divestiture requirement for those Farmer Mac securities that remain subject to stress testing.
We also added a definition of the term “you” in new § 615.5174(e), to clarify that the regulation applies to Farm Credit banks, associations, and service corporations.
We received two comments on § 615.5174, both supporting the stress-testing change, and we are finalizing § 615.5174 as proposed.
We are revising § 615.5180 by moving the requirements of existing § 615.5135 and existing § 615.5181 into this
Interest rate risk management is an important part of the overall financial management of a Farm Credit bank. The potentially adverse effects that interest rate risk may have on net interest income and the market value of equity is of particular importance.
We believe that strong policy direction from a Farm Credit bank's board of directors is essential to an effective interest rate risk management program. Accordingly, final § 615.5180(a) retains the existing requirement, currently contained in § 615.5180, that a bank's board must develop and implement an interest rate risk management program, tailored to the needs of the institution, that establishes a risk management process that effectively identifies, measures, monitors, and controls interest rate risk. Final § 615.5180(a) also contains the requirement, currently contained in § 615.5181(a), that the bank's board of directors must be knowledgeable of the nature and level of interest rate risk taken by the institution.
Final § 615.5180(b) contains the requirement, currently in § 615.5181(b), that senior management is responsible for ensuring that interest rate risk is properly managed on both a long-range and a day-to-day basis.
Final § 615.5180(c), which requires the board of directors of each bank to adopt an interest rate risk management section of an asset/liability management policy that establishes interest rate risk exposure limits as well as the criteria to determine compliance with these limits, contains the requirements we had proposed in § 615.5135, as revised. Final § 615.5180(c) requires, in addition to the existing requirements that carry over, that the interest rate risk management section must establish policies and procedures for the bank to:
• Address the purpose and objectives of interest rate risk management;
• Consider the effect of investments on interest rate risk based on the results of the required stress testing;
• Identify exception parameters and approvals needed for any exceptions to the requirements of the board's policies;
• Describe delegations of authority;
• Describe reporting requirements, including exceptions to limits contained in the board's policies; and
• Consider the nature and purpose of derivative contracts and establish counterparty risk thresholds and limits for derivatives.
We delete several existing requirements because similar requirements are also contained in the board reporting requirements of § 615.5133(g).
We are finalizing our proposal to require that management of each bank must report at least quarterly to its board of directors, or to a designated committee of the board, describing the nature and level of interest rate risk exposure. Any deviations from the board's policies on interest rate risk must be specifically identified in the report and approved by the board or a designated committee of the board.
The Council generally supported the proposed changes to the rule, but it was concerned that FCA would implement the additional requirements in a way that results in additional burden in areas where such burden is not supported by identified weaknesses in current System interest rate risk management practices. The Council stated that this area has functioned exceedingly well over the years, including throughout the recent financial market crisis, and it asked that FCA recognize this effectiveness.
We recognize that overall, the System has implemented effective interest rate risk management practices. We believe our revisions to this rule will further strengthen these practices. We do not intend to impose additional burden in implementation unless that burden is warranted.
We remove this section from our regulations, because we have included these requirements in final § 615.5180.
We made minor technical, non-substantive changes to this provision.
As discussed above, our capital adequacy regulation at § 615.5201 defines the terms Government agency and Government-sponsored agency. We agree with the Council's comment that FCA's definitions should be consistent among themselves. Accordingly, we are revising the definitions in § 615.5201 to conform to the new definitions in § 615.5131.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Government securities, Investments, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 615 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 1.5, 1.7, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.11, 3.25, 4.3, 4.3A, 4.9, 4.14B, 4.25, 5.9, 5.17, 6.20, 6.26, 8.0, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.10, 8.12 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2093, 2122, 2128, 2132, 2146, 2154, 2154a, 2160, 2202b, 2211, 2243, 2252, 2278b, 2278b-6, 2279aa, 2279aa-3, 2279aa-4, 2279aa-6, 2279aa-7, 2279aa-8, 2279aa-10, 2279aa-12); sec. 301(a) of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1608.
(a) Each Farm Credit bank may hold eligible investments, listed under § 615.5140, in an amount not to exceed 35 percent of its total outstanding loans, to comply with its liquidity requirements in § 615.5134, manage surplus short-term funds, and manage interest rate risk under § 615.5180. To comply with this calculation, the 30-day average daily balance of investments is divided by loans. Investments are calculated at amortized cost. Loans are calculated as defined in § 615.5131. For the purpose of this calculation, loans include accrued interest and do not include any allowance for loan loss adjustments. Compliance with the calculation is measured on the last day of every month.
(b) The following investments may be excluded when calculating the amount of eligible investments held by the Farm Credit bank pursuant to § 615.5132(a):
(1) Eligible investments listed under § 615.5140 that are pledged by a Farm Credit bank to meet margin requirements for derivative transactions; and
(2) Any other investments FCA determines are appropriate for exclusion.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(e)
(1) Establish appropriate internal controls to detect and prevent loss, fraud, embezzlement, conflicts of interest, and unauthorized investments.
(2) Establish and maintain a separation of duties between personnel who supervise or execute investment transactions and personnel who supervise or engage in all other investment-related functions.
(3) Maintain records and management information systems that are appropriate for the level and complexity of your investment activities.
(4) Implement an effective internal audit program to review, at least annually, your investment management function, controls, processes, and compliance with FCA regulations. The scope of the annual review must be appropriate for the size, risk and complexity of the investment portfolio.
(f)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) Your stress tests must be defined in a board-approved policy and must include defined parameters for the types of securities you purchase. The stress tests must be comprehensive and appropriate for the risk profile of your institution. At a minimum, the stress tests must be able to measure the price sensitivity of investments over a range of possible interest rate/yield curve scenarios. The methodology that you use to analyze investment securities must be appropriate for the complexity, structure, and cash flows of the investments in your portfolio. You must rely to the maximum extent practicable on verifiable information to support all your assumptions, including prepayment and interest rate volatility assumptions, when you apply your stress tests. You must document the basis for all assumptions that you use to evaluate the security and its underlying collateral. You must also document all subsequent changes in your assumptions.
(5)
(g)
(1) Plans and strategies for achieving the board's objectives for the investment portfolio;
(2) Whether the investment portfolio effectively achieves the board's objectives;
(3) The current composition, quality, and liquidity profile of the investment portfolio;
(4) The performance of each class of investments and the entire investment portfolio, including all gains and losses realized during the quarter on individual investments that you sold before maturity and why they were liquidated;
(5) Potential risk exposure to changes in market interest rates as identified through quarterly stress testing and any other factors that may affect the value of your investment holdings;
(6) How investments affect your capital, earnings, and overall financial condition;
(7) Any deviations from the board's policies (must be specifically identified);
(8) The status and performance of each investment described in § 615.5143(a) and (b) or that does not comply with your investment policies; including the expected effect of these investments on your capital, earnings, liquidity, and collateral position; and
(9) The terms and status of any required divestiture plan or risk reduction plan.
An emergency shall be deemed to exist whenever a financial, economic, agricultural, national defense, or other crisis could impede the normal access of Farm Credit banks to the capital markets. Whenever the Farm Credit Administration determines, after consultation with the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation to the extent practicable, that such an emergency exists, the Farm Credit Administration Board may, in its sole discretion, adopt a resolution that:
(a) Modifies the amount, qualities, and types of eligible investments that Farm Credit banks are authorized to hold pursuant to § 615.5132 of this subpart;
(b) Modifies or waives the liquidity requirement(s) in § 615.5134 of this subpart; and/or
(c) Authorizes other actions as deemed appropriate.
(a) You may hold only the following types of investments listed in the Investment Eligibility Criteria Table. These investments must be denominated in United States dollars.
(a)
(1) It must not be used to satisfy your liquidity requirement(s) under § 615.5134;
(2) It must continue to be included in the § 615.5132 investment portfolio limit calculation; and
(3) It must be excluded as collateral under § 615.5050 and net collateral under § 615.5301(c).
(b)
(1) You must notify us within 15 calendar days after such determination;
(2) You must not use the investment to satisfy your liquidity requirement(s) under § 615.5134;
(3) You must continue to include the investment in the § 615.5132 investment portfolio limit calculation;
(4) You may continue to include the investment as collateral under § 615.5050 and net collateral under § 615.5301(c) at the lower of cost or market value; and
(5) You must develop a plan to reduce the investment's risk to you.
(c)
The revision and addition read as follows:
(d)
(e)
(a) The board of directors of each Farm Credit bank must develop, implement, and effectively oversee an interest rate risk management program tailored to the needs of the institution. The program must establish a risk management process that effectively identifies, measures, monitors, and controls interest rate risk. The board of directors of each Farm Credit bank must be knowledgeable of the nature and level of interest rate risk taken by the institution.
(b) Senior management is responsible for ensuring that interest rate risk is properly managed on both a long-range and a day-to-day basis.
(c) The board of directors of each Farm Credit bank must adopt an interest rate risk management section of an asset/liability management policy that establishes interest rate risk exposure limits as well as the criteria to determine compliance with these limits. At a minimum, the interest rate risk management section must establish policies and procedures for the bank to:
(1) Address the purpose and objectives of interest rate risk management;
(2) Identify and analyze the causes of risks within its existing balance sheet structure;
(3) Measure the potential effect of these risks on projected earnings and market values by conducting interest rate shock tests and simulations of multiple economic scenarios at least on a quarterly basis and by considering the effect of investments on interest rate risk based on the results of the stress testing required under § 615.5133(f)(4);
(4) Describe and implement actions needed to obtain its desired risk management objectives;
(5) Identify exception parameters and approvals needed for any exceptions to the requirements of the board's policies;
(6) Describe delegations of authority;
(7) Describe reporting requirements, including exceptions to limits contained in the board's policies;
(8) Consider the nature and purpose of derivative contracts and establish counterparty risk thresholds and limits for derivatives.
(d) At least quarterly, management of each Farm Credit bank must report to its board of directors, or a designated committee of the board, describing the nature and level of interest rate risk
Any association or other Farm Credit System institution other than Farm Credit banks, excluding the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, with interest rate risk that could lead to significant declines in net income or in the market value of capital must comply with the requirements of § 615.5180. The interest rate risk management program required under § 615.5180 must be commensurate with the level of interest rate risk of the institution.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, us, or we) issues this final rule amending our regulations governing investment management practices of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac or Corporation). This final rule will help ensure that Farmer Mac maintains safe and sound non-program investment management practices in accordance with clearly articulated board-established guidance, streamlines the process for handling investments that fail to meet the eligibility criteria after purchase, and modifies the allowable purposes of Farmer Mac's non-program investments to include investments that would complement Farmer Mac's program activities. We are also finalizing the significant reorganization of these regulations that we proposed to make the regulations easier to follow.
This regulation will be effective 30 days after publication in the
The objective of this final rule is to ensure that Farmer Mac has appropriate Board policies and operational procedures in place to manage its non-program investment portfolio safely and soundly with appropriate consideration of its public mission as a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE). This final rule will:
• Revise the permissible purposes of non-program investments;
• Revise board policy requirements, including stress-testing requirements;
• Modify the non-program investment portfolio limit;
• Reduce the regulatory burden associated with investments that fail to meet eligibility criteria after purchase; and
• Reorganize the regulations to make them easier to follow.
On May 19, 2010, we published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that considered revisions to Farmer Mac's non-program investment and liquidity requirements.
This first phase of final regulations will substantively revise the following regulations:
These revisions will help ensure that Farmer Mac maintains safe and sound non-program investment management practices in accordance with clearly articulated board-established guidance. They also streamline the process for handling investments that fail to meet the eligibility criteria after purchase and modify the allowable purposes of Farmer Mac's non-program investments to include investments that would complement Farmer Mac's program activities.
We are also making minor technical changes to the following provisions:
In addition, we are deleting existing § 652.40, entitled “Stress Tests for
Lastly, we are finalizing the proposed reorganization of the investment management and liquidity regulations to make the sequence of the issues covered more logical.
We intend to address in one or more future rulemakings regulations covering all the areas of the proposed rule not covered in this final rule, including liquidity management and requirements and investment eligibility (including revised creditworthiness requirements). The regulations that we proposed to revise but that we are not issuing as final at this time (except to renumber them and, in some instances, to make minor technical changes) include:
The FCA is an independent agency in the executive branch of the Federal Government that serves as the regulator of Farmer Mac, as well as of the other institutions of the Farm Credit System (System) including, in pertinent part, Farm Credit banks and direct lender associations. The FCA regulates Farmer Mac through the Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO). Farmer Mac is a stockholder-owned instrumentality of the United States, chartered by Congress to establish a secondary market for agricultural real estate, rural housing mortgage loans, and rural utilities loans. Farmer Mac also provides a secondary market for USDA-guaranteed farm program and rural development loans.
A guiding principle for FCA in establishing regulations governing Farmer Mac is to maintain an appropriate balance between the Corporation's mission achievement and risk. We aim to ensure continuity of operations so that Farmer Mac can fulfill its mission during stressful economic conditions that may require sufficient access to secondary sources of liquidity. This final rule is intended to provide a high degree of certainty that Farmer Mac will be able to continue to serve its customers under a wide range of market or economic conditions without the need to issue debt to the Department of Treasury or seek any other form of Government financial assistance.
We received comment letters from Farmer Mac and from the Farm Credit Council (Council), which, in addition to submitting a comment letter directly responding to the NPRM, also asked us to consider, wherever applicable, comments it had submitted on FCA's similar proposed rule pertaining to System banks and associations.
In addition to its comments on specific proposed regulation provisions, the Council generally encouraged us to adapt this rule to more closely mirror the requirements for System banks and associations. Although the two final rules continue to differ where appropriate, changes were made to both this rule and the System banks and associations rule to make the requirements more similar.
We will address each specific comment received in our discussion of the regulation provision to which the comment relates. Some of the minor changes we proposed received no comment. Unless otherwise discussed in this preamble, we are finalizing those provisions as proposed without further explanation. Interested persons are directed to our NPRM for a discussion of those changes. Throughout this regulation, we make minor technical, clarifying, and non-substantive language changes that we do not specifically discuss in this preamble.
We are finalizing the rule's reorganization much the way we proposed it. We provide the following table to orient the reader to the reorganization. The left column of the table contains the existing rule's section headings, and the right column contains the proposed reorganization of section sequence and heading changes.
Generally, the reorganization is meant to address sequentially and as completely as possible the three major categories of management governed in the rule: Investment management; interest rate risk management; and liquidity management.
We received no comments on our proposal to delete the first sentence of this section as unnecessary, and we adopt the revision as proposed.
Many of the definitions we proposed relate to revisions to regulations that will not be finalized until a later installment of this rulemaking, and we will not finalize those definitions until we finalize the regulations to which they relate. We received no comments
We proposed technical clarifications to the definitions of “Government agency” and “Government-sponsored agency.” We are finalizing definitions for these terms with additional technical clarifications.
The Council commented that our existing definition of non-program investments, which we did not propose to revise, is overly broad and allows for the holding of investments beyond the regulatory objectives of ensuring safety and soundness and continuity of funding as outlined in § 652.1. It suggested that we modify the definition to clarify that non-program investments are those held for the investment purposes authorized by revised and renumbered § 652.25. We note that as proposed and as discussed above, this final rule deletes the sentence in § 652.1 to which the comment refers. Moreover, the definition of non-program investments does not itself allow for the holding of investments. Rather, Farmer Mac may hold non-program investments only for the permissible investment purposes. Accordingly, we do not change this definition.
Farmer Mac commented that several of the proposed changes to the rule go well beyond establishing a framework for safety and soundness and instead impose FCA's judgment on proper business operations. Our general response is that we revised some of the proposed requirements in the final rule to make them less prescriptive but that we retain some of the proposed requirements, with clarifications. We respond to the comments on specific provisions below.
The Council requested that FCA follow a similar structure and approach for Farmer Mac as it proposed for the System banks and associations in their investment management rule. In the final rule, we revise the structure and approach of this rule. In addition, the structure and approach of the rule governing System banks and associations has also been revised. We believe the structure and approach of the two rules are now more similar; although, where appropriate, differences still exist.
The Council commented that the proposed requirement that the board must annually review and “affirmatively validate” the sufficiency of its investment policies is overly prescriptive, burdensome, and unclear. We agree that a requirement of annual board review is sufficient and delete “affirmatively validate” from the final rule. With the exception of a few minor technical, clarifying, and non-substantive changes, this paragraph is unchanged from the existing rule.
The Council commented that the requirement (an existing requirement for Farmer Mac that had been proposed for System banks and associations) that Farmer Mac must document in its “records or minutes” any analyses used in formulating investment policies or amendments is burdensome and does not enhance the investment management process. We agree that specifying minutes as a possible location for this documentation is unnecessary. Accordingly, we are deleting “or minutes” from the final rule.
We are moving the requirement (most of which is contained in existing § 652.10(f)(1)) that Farmer Mac's investment policies must fully address the extent of pre-purchase analysis that management must perform for various types, classes, and structure of investments from proposed § 652.10(f)(1)(i) to this paragraph because it is a more logical location.
With these exceptions, we are adopting § 652.10(b) as proposed, including several minor technical and clarifying changes. A discussion of these minor changes may be found in the preamble to the proposed rule.
Proposed § 652.10(c) would have required Farmer Mac's investment policies to ensure that the Corporation maintains prudent diversification of its investment portfolio and that its asset allocations and investment portfolio strategies do not expose its capital or earnings to excessive risk of loss. In final § 652.10(c), we revise this requirement to provide that Farmer Mac's investment policies must include concentration limits to ensure prudent diversification of credit, market, and liquidity risks in its investment portfolio. We believe this language is more specific, better reflects requirements that are necessary for safety and soundness, and provides consistency with the rule governing System banks and associations. We emphasize, however, that the objective of this requirement remains ensuring that Farmer Mac's asset allocations and investment portfolio strategies do not expose its capital or earnings to excessive risk of loss.
In addition, our proposed rule, as well as our existing rule, provides that risk limits must be based on Farmer Mac's objectives, capital position, and risk tolerance. In the final rule, we further specify that risk limits must be based on all relevant factors, including Farmer Mac's objectives, capital position, earnings, and quality and reliability of risk management systems.
Existing § 652.10(c)(1)(ii) requires Farmer Mac's board (or a designated subcommittee) to review annually the criteria for selecting securities firms and the board to approve any changes to the criteria. It also requires that the board (or subcommittee) review annually the existing relationships with securities firms and be notified before any changes to securities firms are made.
In our NPRM, we proposed clarifying changes to these requirements but did not intend a significant change in the meaning. Both Farmer Mac and the Council objected to the existing requirement that the board must review existing relationships and be notified before changes are made to these relationships. The Council commented that this requirement is confusing, creates an excessive burden, and results in an unnecessary distraction for the board.
We agree that as long as Farmer Mac's board (or a designated committee) reviews the selection criteria on an annual basis, and the board approves any changes to the criteria, the board does not need to be involved in the approval of relationships. Accordingly, we have deleted the existing and proposed requirement that the board (or a subcommittee) must review existing relationships and be notified before changes are made to these relationships.
We adopt several other minor technical, clarifying, and non-substantive changes in this paragraph.
Existing § 652.10(e)(2) requires Farmer Mac to establish and maintain a separation of duties and supervision between personnel who execute investment transactions and personnel who approve, revaluate, and oversee investments. Proposed § 651.10(e)(2) would have added to the list of
Both Farmer Mac and the Council objected to this proposed revision as overly prescriptive. Rather than itemizing all of the possible personnel functions, final § 652.10(e)(2) provides that Farmer Mac must establish and maintain a separation of duties between personnel who supervise or execute investment transactions and personnel who supervise or engage in all other investment-related functions. These other investment-related functions include those itemized in the list in the proposed rule, as well as any other functions that are investment related. This regulation does not prohibit one person from performing or supervising more than one investment-related function (other than executing, or supervising the execution of, investment transactions), if appropriate controls are in place as warranted by the complexity and risk of Farmer Mac's investment operations.
Proposed section 652.10(e)(4) would have added a new requirement that Farmer Mac must implement an effective internal audit program to review, at least annually, its investment controls, processes, and compliance with FCA regulations and other regulatory guidance. The internal audit program would have had to specifically include a review of its process for ensuring all investments were eligible and suitable for purchase under its board's investment policies.
Both Farmer Mac and the Council commented that this requirement was too prescriptive and eliminated the flexibility that is necessary for Farmer Mac's internal auditors to establish their own risk-based approach to audits. Final § 652.10(e)(4) requires Farmer Mac to implement an effective internal audit program to review, at least annually, its investment management functions, controls, processes, and compliance with FCA regulations. The scope of the annual review must be appropriate for the size, risk, and complexity of the investment portfolio.
We made a number of minor technical and non-substantive changes throughout this paragraph to clarify the requirements and to more closely match up with the language of the rule governing the System banks and associations. We do not identify these minor changes here. Below we discuss our responses to the comments we received, including the changes we make in response to those comments.
Proposed § 652.10(f)(1)(i) would have required Farmer Mac, before it purchased an investment, to conduct sufficient due diligence to determine whether the investment was eligible and suitable under its board-approved investment policies and to document this determination.
This proposed requirement is retained in new § 652.10(f)(1)(i), with minor clarifications. Since we had used the term “suitable” to mean an investment complied with Farmer Mac's board-approved investment policies, we simplify the regulation by eliminating that term and instead requiring Farmer Mac to determine whether an investment complies with those policies. We also clarify that Farmer Mac must determine whether an investment is for an authorized purpose.
The Council commented that eligibility and the other pre-purchase assessments are often established for a class or segment of securities by specifying the criteria (credit risk, liquidity, market risk, etc.) that make a class of securities eligible and suitable per se, and it requested clarification that these pre-purchase assessments may be defined for segments or classes of securities that meet appropriate criteria rather on a security-by-security basis. We note that the regulation does not prohibit Farmer Mac from establishing criteria for various classes or segments of investments; nonetheless, Farmer Mac must continue to adequately document its evaluation and assessments of investments being purchased.
We also added a sentence to § 652.10(f)(1)(i) specifically authorizing Farmer Mac, with board approval, to hold investments that do not comply with its investment policies. This addition recognizes that such decisions are within the discretion of the board's business judgment. We emphasize that this provision does not authorize the board to approve investments that do not comply with our regulatory eligibility requirements and purpose limitations.
Existing § 652.10(f)(1) requires Farmer Mac to verify the value of a security that it plans to purchase, other than a new issue, with a source that is independent of the broker, dealer, counterparty, or other intermediary to the transaction. We proposed to relocate this requirement to § 652.10(f)(1)(ii) but proposed no substantive changes to the requirement.
Both Farmer Mac and the Council objected to this existing requirement. The Council commented that verifying value from an independent source is not realistic for investments of tranches of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), including planned amortization class (PAC) bonds, purchased in the primary market. The Council stated that these securities are generally unique in nature and their value, when newly created, will be impossible to verify with a third party prior to purchase.
In response, we reiterate that the third-party, pre-purchase valuation requirement explicitly excludes new issues. Accordingly, Farmer Mac need not seek third-party, pre-purchase valuation for new issues.
Proposed § 652.10(f)(1)(iii) would have contained extensive risk-assessment evaluation and documentation requirements. Both Farmer Mac and the Council objected to these requirements. The Council commented that the detail and prescriptiveness of this paragraph was unnecessary, burdensome, and redundant to the proposed investment policy requirements. The Council also stated that the proposed rule governing System banks and associations, while still excessive, was more “streamlined” and consistent with the overall objectives of the regulations.
In response, we have revised the requirements of final § 652.10(f)(1)(iii) to be much less detailed than those in the NPRM as well as more similar, but not identical, to those in the final rule governing System banks and associations. The final rule specifies the risks that must be assessed but, other than stress-testing requirements, which are discussed below, it does not specify how these risks must be assessed. We explain in this preamble our expectations for how Farmer Mac should assess its risk. These expectations were stated as requirements in the proposed rule.
In its assessment of credit risk, Farmer Mac should consider the nature and type of underlying collateral, credit enhancements, complexity of the structure, and any other available indicators of the risk of default.
In its assessment of liquidity risk, Farmer Mac should consider the investment structure, depth of the market, and ability to liquidate the
In its assessment of market risk, Farmer Mac should consider how various market stress scenarios including, at a minimum, potential changes in interest rates and market conditions (such as changes in market perceptions of creditworthiness), are likely to affect the cash flow and price of the instrument.
The proposed rule would have required Farmer Mac, in conducting its market risk assessment, to use reasonable and appropriate methodologies for stress testing for the type or class of instrument to ensure the investment complies with risk limits established in its investment and interest rate risk policies. Although we intended that this stress-testing requirement would encompass structured instruments and those with uncertain cash flows, such as mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities, the proposed rule did not expressly specify what types or classes of instruments must be stress tested.
The Council commented that this proposal was more lenient than the provisions that were proposed for System banks and associations, which would have expressly required stress testing of all instruments prior to purchase. In response to the Council's comment, and to clarify our intentions in our proposed regulation, final § 651.10(f)(1)(iii) expressly requires Farmer Mac to stress test all investments that are structured or that have uncertain cash flows, including specifically mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities, prior to their purchase. The stress test must be commensurate with the risk and complexity of the investment.
Existing § 652.10(f)(2) requires Farmer Mac, at least monthly, to determine the fair market value of each security in its portfolio and the fair market value of its whole investment portfolio. In doing so, Farmer Mac must also evaluate the credit quality and price sensitivity to the change in market interest rates of each security in its portfolio and its whole investment portfolio. We had proposed to delete the entire second sentence. Final § 652.10(f)(3) requires Farmer Mac to establish and maintain processes to monitor and evaluate changes in the credit quality of each security in its portfolio and its whole investment portfolio on an ongoing basis. We delete the price sensitivity evaluation requirement because that is addressed in our final interest rate risk management regulation at § 652.30(c)(3).
Final § 652.10(f)(4)(i) requires Farmer Mac to stress test its entire investment portfolio, including stress tests of all investments individually and stress tests of the portfolio as a whole, at the end of each quarter. The stress test must enable Farmer Mac to determine that its investment securities, both individually and on a portfolio-wide basis, do not expose its capital, earnings, or liquidity to risks that exceed the risk tolerance specified in its investment policies. These requirements combine and clarify the existing § 652.40(a) requirement that Farmer Mac be able to identify individual securities that expose it to a high level of risk with the portfolio-wide stress testing required by proposed § 652.10(f)(3)(i).
The Council commented that the stress-testing requirements in proposed § 652.10(f)(3)(ii) differed in subtle but important ways from what was proposed for System banks and associations, and it stated that this inconsistency was not supported by any business difference between Farmer Mac and System banks and associations. The Council did not, however, either specify the differences or explain why the differences were important. We have made a few minor changes in the final rule. We believe the final rule is substantially similar to the final rule governing the System banks and associations; any differences are not intended to be material.
Farmer Mac commented that the board reporting requirements in proposed § 652.10(g) go beyond establishing a framework for safety and soundness and instead effectively supplant Farmer Mac's business judgment with FCA's, but the Corporation provided no specific comments on the requirements. The Council, commenting on the proposed rule governing System banks and associations—which was somewhat more detailed than the proposed rule governing Farmer Mac—stated that the board reporting requirements were exceedingly prescriptive and limiting of the board's authority to direct management, and it requested that the provisions be generalized and simply require that the board receive a quarterly report containing information on the investment portfolio as the board deems appropriate.
We are finalizing § 651.10(g) as proposed. We believe this level of reporting is necessary to ensure the board has the information it needs about Farmer Mac's investments.
We are finalizing our proposal to renumber existing § 652.25 as § 652.15.
We proposed in § 652.15(a) to add a new permissible purpose for Farmer Mac's non-program investments—investments that complement program business activities. In the preamble to the proposed rule, we stated that this purpose would recognize that certain investments, such as investments with a rural focus that are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government, could advance Farmer Mac's mission by complementing its program business activities. We believe that even if an investment is not held for the purposes of complying with interest rate risk management requirements, complying with liquidity requirements, or managing surplus short-term funds, mission advancement could nevertheless be an appropriate purpose for which to hold investments.
Section 8.3(c)(12) of the Act permits Farmer Mac to “purchase or sell any securities or obligations * * * necessary and convenient to the business of the Corporation.” We believe this proposed broadening of investment purposes is compatible with Farmer Mac's statutory mandate and consistent with congressional intent.
We emphasized in the preamble to the proposed rule that this provision would not add any new eligible investments to our authorized list; Farmer Mac would still need to seek FCA's prior approval for any investments not explicitly authorized on the list of eligible investments.
In addition, we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that neither the proposed purpose nor any of the three existing purposes authorize Farmer Mac to accumulate investment portfolios for arbitrage activities or to engage in trading for speculative or primarily capital gains purposes. We stated that realizing gains on sales before investments mature is not a regulatory violation as long as the profits are incidental to the specified permissible investment purposes. And we emphasized that Farmer Mac's internal controls must ensure that eligible investments clearly fulfill one or more of the authorized investment purposes.
The Council strongly objected to the proposed purpose, stating that FCA “specifically states” that the purpose will allow Farmer Mac to use non-program investments as a business strategy to enhance returns for investors.
We adopt this provision as proposed. We specifically state that this new purpose is to advance Farmer Mac's mission by complementing Farmer Mac's program business activities—not to enhance returns to investors. Positive returns are permissible only if they are incidental to this purpose or to one of the three existing purposes. FCA will use its supervisory authorities to ensure that all investments held for this purpose actually do complement Farmer Mac's program business activities and that the risk and return characteristics of such investments are appropriate.
As stated above, Farmer Mac may hold only investments that are already on the list of eligible investments unless it seeks FCA's prior approval. In determining whether to grant approval, FCA will consider the risk of the investment and whether it actually does complement Farmer Mac's program business activities; where appropriate, we may impose conditions on the approval. Although System banks do not have such a purpose authorized by regulation, FCA has approved many mission-related investments for System banks and associations. We further emphasize that Farmer Mac's investments held for any of the four permissible purposes will be subject to the 35-percent investment limit in § 652.15(b). We believe this limitation will help ensure that Farmer Mac's mission achievement continues to be centered on providing a source of liquidity and credit support for agriculture and rural lenders directly through its secondary market and guarantee programs. Investments that complement program business activities should have an agricultural or rural focus.
We adopt as final our proposal to change the current regulatory maximum non-program investment parameters in paragraph (b) to delete the alternate maximum of a fixed $1.5 billion. While we continue to believe that excessive or inappropriate use of non-program investments is not consistent with the Corporation's statutory mission and status as a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), we believe the maximum investment parameter of 35 percent of program volume alone is sufficient and that there is no longer a need for the $1.5-billion ceiling on that maximum calculation. This change is based on Farmer Mac's growth since the $1.5 billion ceiling was established in 2005. We received no comment on this proposal.
Also in paragraph (b), we adopt as final our proposal to permit Farmer Mac to exclude investments pledged to meet margin requirements for derivative transactions (collateral) when calculating the 35-percent investment limit under paragraph (b).
The Council requested that we also exclude various other investments from the investment limit calculation. The Council requested that we exclude securities purchased and designated for the primary purpose of posting collateral for derivative positions, even if the collateral is returned or the securities are never posted. The Council stated that including these securities in the limit would require Farmer Mac to maintain a cushion under the limit to accommodate the possibility of return, thereby limiting the amount of other investments it can hold to manage its liquidity position and derivative counterparty exposures.
Both Farmer Mac and the Council asked that Treasury securities also be excluded from the 35-percent limit. Farmer Mac stated that the proposed rule would require it to hold significant amounts of Treasury securities to meet FCA's liquidity requirements, thereby utilizing a large portion of its liquidity and investment portfolio capacity. The Council stated that the 35-percent limit creates an economic constraint and disincentive to holding Treasury securities, even though they are the most liquid and marketable investment.
Finally, the Council also requested that investment securities pledged in secured borrowing relationships be excluded from the 35-percent limit. The Council cited State Ag-Linked lending programs and repurchase agreements as examples of these secured borrowing relationships. Under both arrangements, according to the Council, the pledging of securities acts as an alternative means of obtaining cash for operations. Under § 652.35(b) (renumbered from § 652.20(b)), these investments may not be counted in the liquidity reserve because they are not unencumbered. The Council asserts that excluding securities pledged in secured borrowing relationships from the 35-percent limit would be consistent with use of the securities as an alternative method to secure financing and their treatment under the FCA regulatory liquidity measurement.
We decline to exclude these investments from the investment limit. We view these types of transactions as part of Farmer Mac's normal cash management operations. Thus, under normal conditions, we expect Farmer Mac to manage the level of its investments within FCA's portfolio size limits to ensure regulatory compliance. If, in unusual business environments, Farmer Mac were to experience the unexpected need for a significant increase in pledgeable assets, and that increase could result in a short-term need for regulatory flexibility regarding the 35-percent maximum limit, § 652.45 of this regulation provides for FCA discretion to allow that flexibility.
As proposed, we renumber existing § 652.35, Eligible Non-Program Investments, as § 652.20. We delete the reference to divestiture that was contained in § 652.35(a)(5), because we no longer require divestiture of investments that were eligible when purchased, and the treatment of investments that were ineligible when purchased is specified in § 652.25(a). We also delete the references to stress-testing mortgage securities that were contained in § 652.35(a)(6), because new § 652.10(f) sets forth stress-testing requirements for investments. We are reprinting this provision because of these changes, but we are making no other changes to the provision.
As proposed, we delete existing § 652.45 and replace it with new § 652.25. Existing § 652.45(a)(2) requires Farmer Mac to dispose of an investment that is ineligible
New § 652.25(b) no longer requires Farmer Mac to divest of (or to receive approval of a divestiture plan for) an investment that was eligible
The proposed rule would have required Farmer Mac to notify the OSMO “promptly” if an investment no longer satisfied the eligibility criteria. Farmer Mac commented that the term “prompt” leaves significant room for interpretation as to practical application, and it requested a specific timeframe. The Council commented that it was unsure what “prompt” meant in the context of the rule, and it stated that notification is redundant and unnecessary given the requirements of the regulation and the ongoing nature of FCA's examination function. If FCA retained this requirement, the Council suggested a 60-calendar-day notice period.
In response to these comments, we make the notification period 15 calendar days after Farmer Mac determines that the investment no longer satisfies the eligibility criteria. We believe this notification period is adequate, since the timeframe does not begin until Farmer Mac makes the determination. Moreover, notification can be as simple as a telephone call or an email.
The proposed rule would also have required notification to the OSMO when an investment that satisfied the regulatory eligibility criteria was not suitable because it did not satisfy the risk tolerance established in the institution's required board policy, and the investment would have been subject to the same specified requirements discussed below. We are deleting this notification requirement from the final rule because we do not want to create a disincentive for Farmer Mac to establish a risk tolerance that is stricter than FCA's regulatory eligibility criteria. Under the final rule, Farmer Mac does not have to notify the OSMO when an investment that satisfies FCA's regulatory eligibility criteria does not satisfy its own risk tolerance, nor is the investment subject to the other specified requirements discussed below.
As we proposed, final § 652.25(a) provides that an investment that does not satisfy the regulatory eligibility criteria at the time of purchase is ineligible. Under the final rule (as under the existing regulation), Farmer Mac may not purchase ineligible investments. If Farmer Mac does purchase an ineligible investment, it must notify the OSMO within 15 calendar days after determining that the investment was ineligible and must divest of the investment no later than 60 calendar days after the determination unless we approved, in writing, a plan that authorizes divestiture over a longer period of time.
Although it is not stated in the regulation, we clarify here that an acceptable divestiture plan would have to require Farmer Mac to dispose of the investment as quickly as possible without substantial financial loss. The plan would also have to contain sufficient analysis to support continued retention of the investment, including its effect on the institution's capital, earnings, liquidity, and collateral position. Our decision would not be based solely on financial loss and would include consideration of all circumstances surrounding the purchase. Until Farmer Mac divests of the investment, it would be subject to the same specified requirements discussed below.
Furthermore, we emphasize that any purchase of an ineligible investment would indicate weaknesses in Farmer Mac's internal controls and due diligence and would trigger increased FCA oversight if it occurs. We expect such a purchase to occur rarely, if ever. For this reason, we are retaining the divestiture requirement from the existing and proposed rules, despite the Council's request that we treat investments that are ineligible when purchased in the same manner as we treat investments that are eligible when purchased but that subsequently fail to meet the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, in response to the Council's comment that this provision essentially authorizes Farmer Mac to purchase ineligible investments that could be held for 60 calendar days, we emphasize that this provision does not authorize such a purchase. As stated, if Farmer Mac makes such a purchase, it should expect increased FCA oversight of its internal controls and due diligence process, as well as other enforcement actions as appropriate.
The specified requirements that apply to investments retained by Farmer Mac that are ineligible or that no longer satisfy the eligibility requirements are specified in § 652.25(c). We believe these specified requirements are warranted by safety and soundness concerns.
Section 652.25(c)(1) contains reporting requirements. Each quarter, Farmer Mac is required to report to FCA and to its board on the status of all such investments. The report must demonstrate the effect that the investments may have on the Corporation's capital, earnings, and liquidity position. Additionally, the report must address how the Corporation plans to reduce its risk exposure from these investments or exit the position.
Section 652.25(c)(2) provides that the investments may not be used to satisfy Farmer Mac's liquidity requirement(s) in § 652.40 and that they must continue to be included in the investment portfolio limit calculation established in § 652.15(b).
Finally, § 652.25(d) reserves FCA's authority to require Farmer Mac to divest of any investment at any time for failure to comply with § 652.15(a) or for safety and soundness purposes. Although we did not propose failure to comply with the permissible investment purposes specified in § 652.15(a) as a basis for requiring divestiture, this change makes explicit our authority to require divestiture of an investment that does not comply with our investment regulations. The timeframe FCA sets would consider the expected loss on the transaction (or transactions) and the effect on Farmer Mac's financial condition and performance. Because the final rule does not require automatic divestiture of any investment that was eligible when purchased, FCA is making express our authority to require divestiture of investments when necessary.
We renumber existing § 652.15 as § 652.30. No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this section, and we finalize them as
As proposed, we renumber existing § 652.20, Liquidity Reserve Management and Requirements, as § 652.35. We are reprinting this provision because of this renumbering, but we are making no other changes to the provision.
As proposed, we remove this standalone section from our regulations and incorporate its requirements into § 652.10(f), as discussed above.
We adopt the proposed revisions to § 652.45. We relocate existing § 652.30, which authorizes FCA to modify or waive regulatory investment management and liquidity management requirements in extraordinary situations, to new § 652.45. We believe this location is more appropriate for this provision.
In addition to the existing specific modifications and waivers the provision authorizes, we amend § 652.45 to authorize FCA to take other actions as deemed appropriate. This added authority will give FCA additional flexibility to address extraordinary situations.
We received no comments on this revision, and the Council was supportive of similar changes in the proposed rule governing System banks.
Farmer Mac has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify it as a small entity. Therefore, Farmer Mac is not a “small entity” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Capital, Investments, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 652 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 4.12, 5.9, 5.17, 8.11, 8.31, 8.32, 8.33, 8.34, 8.35, 8.36, 8.37, 8.41 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2252, 2279aa-11, 2279bb, 2279bb-1, 2279bb-2, 2279bb-3, 2279bb-4, 2279bb-5, 2279bb-6, 2279cc); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102-552, 106 Stat. 4102; sec. 118 of Pub. L. 104-105, 110 Stat. 168.
The purpose of this subpart is to ensure safety and soundness, continuity of funding, and appropriate use of non-program investments considering the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation's (Farmer Mac or Corporation) special status as a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE). The subpart contains requirements for Farmer Mac's board of directors to adopt policies covering such areas as investment management, interest rate risk, and liquidity reserves. The subpart also requires Farmer Mac to comply with various reporting requirements.
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions will apply:
(1) The full faith and credit obligations of a state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision thereof that possesses general powers of taxation, including property taxation; or
(2) An obligation that is unconditionally guaranteed by an obligor possessing general powers of taxation, including property taxation.
(1) Pass-through securities or participation certificates that represent ownership of a fractional undivided interest in a specified pool of residential (excluding home equity loans), multifamily or commercial mortgages, or
(2) A multiclass security (including collateralized mortgage obligations and real estate mortgage investment conduits) that is backed by a pool of residential, multifamily or commercial real estate mortgages, pass-through mortgage securities, or other multiclass mortgage securities.
(3) This definition does not include agricultural mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Farmer Mac itself.
(1) “Qualified loans” as defined in section 8.0(9) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended; or
(2) Securities collateralized by “qualified loans.”
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i) Credit quality standards, limits on counterparty risk, and risk diversification standards that limit concentrations in a single or related counterparty(ies), geographical areas, industry sectors, and asset classes or obligations with similar characteristics.
(ii) Criteria for selecting brokers, dealers, and investment bankers (collectively, securities firms). You must buy and sell eligible investments with more than one securities firm. As part of your review of your investment policies required under paragraph (a) of this section, your board of directors, or a designated committee of the board, must review the criteria for selecting securities firms. Any changes to the criteria must be approved by the board.
(iii) Collateral margin requirements on repurchase agreements. You must regularly mark the collateral to market and ensure appropriate controls are maintained over collateral held.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(e)
(1) Establish appropriate internal controls to detect and prevent loss, fraud, embezzlement, conflicts of interest, and unauthorized investments.
(2) Establish and maintain a separation of duties between personnel who supervise or execute investment transactions and personnel who supervise or engage in all other investment-related functions.
(3) Maintain records and management information systems that are appropriate for the level and complexity of your investment activities.
(4) Implement an effective internal audit program to review, at least annually, your investment management functions, controls, processes, and compliance with FCA regulations. The scope of the annual review must be appropriate for the size, risk, and complexity of the investment portfolio.
(f)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) Your stress tests must be comprehensive and appropriate for the risk profile of your investment portfolio and the Corporation. At a minimum, the stress tests must be able to measure the price sensitivity of investments over a range of possible interest rate/yield curve scenarios. The methodology that you use to analyze investment securities must be appropriate for the complexity, structure, and cash flows of the investments in your portfolio. You must rely to the maximum extent practicable on verifiable information to support all your assumptions, including prepayment and interest rate volatility assumptions, when you apply your stress tests. Your assumptions must be prudent and based on sound judgment, and you must document the basis for all assumptions that you use to evaluate the security and its underlying collateral. You must also document all subsequent changes in your assumptions.
(5)
(g)
(1) Plans and strategies for achieving the board's objectives for the investment portfolio;
(2) Whether the investment portfolio effectively achieves the board's objectives;
(3) The current composition, quality, and liquidity profile of the investment portfolio;
(4) The performance of each class of investments and the entire investment portfolio, including all gains and losses that you incurred during the quarter on individual securities that you sold before maturity and why they were liquidated;
(5) Potential risk exposure to changes in market interest rates as identified through quarterly stress testing and any other factors that may affect the value of your investment holdings;
(6) How investments affect your capital, earnings, and overall financial condition;
(7) Any deviations from the board's policies. These deviations must be formally approved by the board of directors.
(a) Farmer Mac is authorized to hold eligible non-program investments listed under § 652.20 for the purposes of enterprise risk management, including complying with its interest rate risk requirements in § 652.30; complying with its liquidity requirements in § 652.40; managing surplus short-term funds; and complementing program business activities.
(b) Non-program investments cannot exceed 35 percent of program assets and program obligations, excluding 75 percent of the program assets that are guaranteed by the United States Department of Agriculture as described in section 8.0(9)(B) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. When calculating the total amount of non-program investments under this section, exclude investments pledged to meet margin requirements on derivative transactions.
(a) You may hold only the types, quantities, and qualities of non-program investments listed in the following Non-Program Investment Eligibility Criteria Table. These investments must be denominated in United States dollars.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2) Your request for our approval must explain the risk characteristics of the investment and your purpose and objectives for making the investment.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) The board of directors of Farmer Mac must provide effective oversight (direction, controls, and supervision) of interest rate risk management and must be knowledgeable of the nature and level of interest rate risk taken by Farmer Mac.
(b) The board of directors of Farmer Mac must adopt an interest rate risk management policy that establishes appropriate interest rate risk exposure limits based on the Corporation's risk-bearing capacity and reporting requirements in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. At least annually, the board of directors, or a designated committee of the board, must review the policy. Any changes to the policy must be approved by the board of directors. You must report any changes to the policy to the OSMO within 10 business days of adoption.
(c) The interest rate risk management policy must, at a minimum:
(1) Address the purpose and objectives of interest rate risk management;
(2) Identify the causes of interest rate risk and set appropriate quantitative limits consistent with a clearly articulated board risk tolerance;
(3) Require management to establish and implement comprehensive procedures to measure the potential effect of these risks on the Corporation's projected earnings and market values by conducting interest rate stress tests and simulations of multiple economic scenarios at least quarterly. Your stress tests must gauge how interest rate fluctuations affect the Corporation's capital, earnings, and liquidity position. The methodology that you use must be appropriate for the complexity of the structure and cash flows of your on- and off-balance sheet positions, including the nature and purpose of derivative contracts, and establish counterparty risk thresholds and limits for derivatives. It must also ensure an appropriate level of consistency with the stress-test scenarios considered under § 652.10(f)(4). Assumptions applied in stress tests must, to the maximum extent practicable, rely on verifiable information. You must document the basis for all assumptions that you use.
(4) Describe and authorize management to implement actions needed to achieve Farmer Mac's desired risk management objectives;
(5) Ensure procedures are established to evaluate and document, at least quarterly, whether actions taken have actually met the Corporation's desired risk management objectives;
(6) Identify exception parameters and approvals needed for any exceptions to the policy's requirements;
(7) Describe delegations of authority; and,
(8) Describe reporting requirements, including exceptions to policy limits.
(d) At least quarterly, management must report to the Corporation's board of directors, or a designated committee of the board, describing the nature and level of interest rate risk exposure. Any deviations from the board's policy on interest rate risk must be specifically identified in the report and approved by the board, or a designated committee of the board.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) For cash and overnight investments, multiply the cash and investments by 100 percent;
(2) For money market instruments with maturities of 5 business days or less, multiply the instruments by 97 percent of market value;
(3) For money market instruments with maturities greater than 5 business days and floating-rate debt and preferred stock securities, multiply the instruments and securities by 95 percent of market value;
(4) For diversified investment funds, multiply the individual securities in the funds by the discounts that would apply to the securities if held separately;
(5) For fixed-rate debt and preferred stock securities, multiply the securities by 90 percent of market value;
(6) For securities backed by Farmer Mac program assets (loans) guaranteed by the United States Department of Agriculture as described in section 8.0(9)(B) of the Act, multiply the securities by 75 percent; and
(7) We reserve the authority to modify or determine the appropriate discount for any investment used to meet the minimum liquidity reserve requirement if the otherwise applicable discount does not accurately reflect the liquidity of that investment or if the investment does not fit wholly within one of the specified investment categories. In making any modification or determination, we will consider the liquidity of the investment as well as any other relevant factors. We will provide notice of at least 20 business days before any modified discounts will take effect.
(d)
(e)
(1) The purpose and objectives of liquidity reserves;
(2) A listing of specific assets, debt, and arrangements that can be used to meet liquidity objectives;
(3) Diversification requirements of your liquidity reserve portfolio;
(4) Maturity limits and credit quality standards for non-program investments used to meet the minimum liquidity reserve requirement of paragraph (a) of this section;
(5) The minimum and target (or optimum) amounts of liquidity that the board believes are appropriate for Farmer Mac;
(6) The maximum amount of non-program investments that can be held for meeting Farmer Mac's liquidity needs, as expressed as a percentage of program assets and program obligations;
(7) Exception parameters and post approvals needed;
(8) Delegations of authority; and
(9) Reporting requirements.
(f)
(g)
Whenever the FCA determines that an extraordinary situation exists that necessitates a temporary regulatory waiver or modification, the FCA may, in its sole discretion:
(a) Modify or waive the minimum liquidity reserve requirement in § 652.40 of this subpart;
(b) Modify the amount, qualities, and types of eligible investments that you are authorized to hold pursuant to § 652.20 of this subpart; and/or
(c) Take other actions as deemed appropriate.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New Hampshire. These revisions consist of a demonstration that New Hampshire meets the requirements of reasonably available control technology for oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds set forth by the Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and revisions to existing rules controlling these pollutants, and source-specific orders for fifteen individual sources. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
This direct final rule will be effective January 4, 2013, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 2012. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0451 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at the State Air Agency, as follows: Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.
Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, fax number (617) 918-0046, 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.
In 1997, EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing one-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA designated portions of New Hampshire located in the southern part of the state as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. These areas were classified as moderate, and are located within portions of Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford counties. See 40 CFR 81.330. The use of reasonably available control technology (RACT) by certain stationary sources is specified by sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, or “the Act”) in nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher. Additionally, section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires RACT controls in states located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Although most of central and northern New Hampshire were not designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, all parts of the state are within the OTR and therefore all parts of New Hampshire are required to implement RACT.
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT on all sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document and on all major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide (NO
On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the
On January 28, 2008, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consisted of information documenting how the State complied with RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
On October 5, 2006, EPA issued four new CTGs which states were required to address by October 5, 2007 (71 FR 58745). Also, on October 9, 2007, EPA issued three more CTGs which states were required to address by October 9, 2008 (72 FR 57215). Furthermore, on October 7, 2008, EPA issued four additional CTGs which states were required to address by October 7, 2009 (73 FR 58841). New Hampshire's January 28, 2008 SIP revision and today's action do not address the state's obligations with regard to EPA's 2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs. EPA intends to address those CTG obligations in a separate action in the near future.
On January 28, 2008, New Hampshire submitted a demonstration that its regulatory framework for stationary sources met the criteria for RACT as defined in EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule. The state held a public hearing on its RACT certification finding on October 20, 2006. New Hampshire's RACT submittal notes that the State's former status as a nonattainment area for the one-hour ozone standard resulted in the adoption of stringent controls for sources of VOC and NO
The state's submittal identifies the specific control measures that have been previously adopted to control emissions from sources of VOC and NO
Regarding items 6 and 7 above, we note that New Hampshire's negative declarations for these sectors is with regard to the CTG's issued in 1977 for large appliances (EPA-450/2-77-034, 1977/12) and in 1978 for flat wood paneling (EPA-450/2-78-032, 1978/06). EPA updated the flat wood paneling CTG in 2006, and the large appliance surface coating CTG in 2007, and New Hampshire subsequently addressed these updated CTGs. However, in this rulemaking we are only acting on New Hampshire's negative declarations for the 1977 and 1978 versions of these CTGs.
Appendix A of New Hampshire's submittal contains a summary of information for each of EPA's CTG categories, and identifies the specific state rule, where relevant, that is in place, the effective date for each rule, and the date that EPA approved the rule into the New Hampshire SIP. Appendix B identifies the major VOC and NO
We provide a brief summary of each of the orders in Table 1, and identify the action we are taking on them in Section III.B of this direct final rule.
New Hampshire's certification notes that the RACT requirements apply to sources that have the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of NO
New Hampshire's submittal notes that for the years 2003 through 2005 the state did not record any violations of the 1997 ozone standard, and the state's submittal concludes that tighter NO
On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted revised versions of Env-A 800, Testing and Monitoring Procedures, Env-A 1204, VOC RACT, and Env-A 1211, NO
On November 14, 2003, New Hampshire submitted a revised version of Env-A 900, Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, to EPA as a SIP revision request. More recently, on July 6, 2012, New Hampshire submitted an updated, revised version of Env-A 900 to EPA as a SIP revision request. On September 26, 2012, New Hampshire withdrew its November 2003 submission since its July 2012 submission of a revised version of Env-A 900 entirely superseded the earlier version of Env-A 900 included in its November 2003 submission.
EPA has evaluated the VOC and NO
We are determining that these regulatory elements and the resulting reduction in VOC and NO
EPA published a clean data determination for New Hampshire's only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in the
On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted a revised version of its VOC RACT regulation, Env-A 1204, to EPA as a SIP revision request. The revised version of the VOC RACT rules removed provisions relating to petroleum refineries, as there are no such facilities in the state. Additionally, the state removed a section regarding an equivalent substitute control technique because a similar provision that requires submittal to EPA exists and was retained in the rule. Several minor updates to references and correction of errors were also made within the March 12, 2003 submittal.
On July 9, 2007, New Hampshire submitted additional updates to its VOC RACT regulations to EPA as a SIP revision request. The July 9, 2007 submittal consisted primarily of updates to the state's existing requirements for solvent metal cleaning that were made to match requirements recommended within a model rule adopted by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). The primary changes made to the rule consisted of adoption of expanded applicability of the state's existing rule to include anyone who sells VOC containing solvent for use in a cold cleaning machine, and a prohibition was added preventing certain items from being cleaned in a cold cleaning machine. In keeping with the model rule adopted by the OTC, New Hampshire's rule prohibits the use of solvents with a vapor pressure greater than 1.0 millimeter of mercury in cold cleaning operations. The addition of a vapor pressure limit makes the revised rule more stringent than the previous version of the rule approved by EPA into the New Hampshire SIP in 2002 (67 FR 48033), thus satisfying the anti-backsliding requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA. A number of minor updates and renumbering changes were also included in the July 9, 2007 submittal. We are approving New Hampshire's updated VOC RACT regulations as submitted to EPA on March 12, 2003, and modified on July 9, 2007.
As previously mentioned, on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11600), EPA approved New Hampshire's VOC RACT requirements that the state had adopted in 1995 as part of its emission control strategy for the one-hour ozone standard. However, our March 10, 1998 action provided only a limited approval of Env-A 1204.27, the state's rule for major sources that are not covered by one of EPA's CTG documents. A final, full approval of Env-A 1204.27 was issued on July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48033), although that approval was limited to portions of the state located in the New Hampshire portion of the eastern Massachusetts serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area. Approval of Env-A-1204.27 in the remainder of the state was not granted at that time because New Hampshire had not issued single source RACT orders for all major sources of VOC and NO
New Hampshire has now adopted RACT for all major sources, and we are approving those orders and providing a full statewide approval of New Hampshire's requirements for miscellaneous and multi-category sources within this direct final rule.
A brief description of the single source VOC RACT orders that we are approving in today's action is provided below. A number of these orders contain provisions for complying with RACT via purchase of, or generation of, emission reduction credits. New Hampshire has an adopted emissions credit trading rule, Env-A 3100, Discrete Emission Reduction Trading Program. However, EPA has not approved Env-A 3100 into the New Hampshire SIP. Therefore, we have evaluated the generation and use of DERs in each of these cases and believe that they represent a legitimate option for sources to comply with RACT. We are therefore approving their use as outlined in the individual orders being approved in this action. Additionally, any purchased credits used for RACT compliance must come from a source whose order is also federally approved.
The Concord Litho Group operates a facility in Concord, New Hampshire where it uses an offset lithographic printing operation to produce greeting cards, brochures, magazines, and direct mail inserts. The company operates two regenerative thermal oxidizers to control VOC emissions from five of the seven printing presses at the facility. On September 17, 2007, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD 07-003 to the company. The order requires that the VOC emissions from the dryer exhaust of the heat-set web offset lithographic presses either be reduced by 90% or have a total organics level of 20 parts per million or less. The company will meet these requirements by controlling VOC emissions with their two recuperative thermal oxidizers. The order allows the facility to comply by purchasing DERs during times that maintenance is being performed, or when an oxidizer malfunctions.
The Hitchiner Manufacturing Company operates a casting foundry and ceramics molding operation in Milford, New Hampshire. In 2002, the facility ceased operation of a VOC emitting operation referred to as the Plant 2 ceramics molding process and was granted 29 tons in VOC emission reduction credits (ERCs) by NH-DES for this shutdown. NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-02-001 to the facility on June 21, 2002. The order requires that the facility reduce its VOC
Hutchinson Sealing Systems located in Newfields, New Hampshire, operates a facility that produces sealing systems, body seals, and rubber glass-run channels used in the automotive and other industries. On August 8, 2002, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-01-002 to the facility, and submitted it as a revision to the state's SIP on this same day. On March 23, 2012, NH-DES submitted an updated VOC RACT order identified as ARD-11-001 that replaced the prior order issued to the facility in 2002. The updated order indicates that the company will install and operate a catalytic oxidizer to control VOC emissions from some of the process lines at the facility. The updated order contains VOC content limits for motor vehicle weather-strip adhesive coatings, and an allowance for compliance to be met by using either DERs or ERCs. The company must also continue to research and test water based and/or high solids coatings as new products become available.
The Kalwall Corporation located in Manchester, New Hampshire, manufactures energy efficient window like structural components out of specially formulated, fiberglass reinforced material. The NH-DES developed VOC RACT order ARD-95-010 for the facility and submitted it to EPA on September 10, 1996, and we approved that order into the New Hampshire SIP in our March 10, 1998 final rulemaking mentioned elsewhere in this document. On June 25, 1999, NH-DES submitted an updated VOC RACT order for Kalwall numbered ARD-99-001 to replace the previously issued order, and requested the order be approved into the New Hampshire SIP. A minor update to this order was submitted to EPA on November 20, 2001, and we are approving that version of ARD-99-001 via this final rulemaking. The major aspects of the updated order establish VOC content limits for bonding agents used on IBSS process lines 1 and 2, for coatings used in the KWS process, for clear or transparent topcoats used in the KCRF process, and for pretreatment primers applied in the KCRF process. VOC RACT order ARD-99-001 also allows the company to comply by purchasing DERs as provided for by Env-A 3100 of New Hampshire's air regulations.
On June 16, 2003, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-03-002 to the Mectrol Corporation located in Salem, New Hampshire and submitted it to EPA as a SIP revision request. However, by letter dated July 2, 2009, NH-DES subsequently withdrew this request because the coating units that had been the subject of the order had been removed from the facility. Therefore, we are taking no action with regard to New Hampshire's June 16, 2003 SIP submittal request.
Metal Works, Inc., operates a facility in Londonderry, New Hampshire, where it is primarily engaged in the fabrication of sheet metal. The facility operates 5 spray booths, and these booths are the primary source of VOC emissions at the facility. On December 22, 2004, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-05-001. The order contains the following VOC content limits: for clear and transparent top coats 4.3 lbs VOC per gallon of coating, as applied, excluding water and exempt coatings; for coatings used in extreme environmental conditions, and for air dried coatings, 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon of coating; and for all other coatings, 3.0 lbs VOC per gallon of coating. The order also allows the company to comply with VOC RACT by using DERs.
The Chomerics Division of the Parker Hanifan Corporation located in Hudson, New Hampshire, produces coated fabrics, films, and other substrates for use in the electronics industry. NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-03-001 to the company on July 18, 2002. The facility operates four continuous web coaters, and the VOC emissions from each are captured within a permanent total enclosure that meets the requirements of EPA Method 204. Exhaust from dryers on each line is fed to a catalytic oxidizer that is required to achieve a minimum destruction and removal efficiency for VOCs of 93%. The order contains monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for the catalytic oxidizer. The order also allows the company to comply by generating and using emission credits for compliance, and to comply via the purchase of DERs.
The Polyonics facility located in Westmoreland, New Hampshire, manufactures pressure sensitive tagging and labeling materials. The company operates a catalytic oxidizer to control VOC emissions from its two web gravure coaters. On December 28, 2007, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD 07-004 to the company. The order requires that the company comply with a VOC content limit of 2.9 lbs VOC per gallon for its paper, fabric, film and foil coating operations. Alternatively, the company is allowed to comply by using the catalytic oxidizer, by averaging coating limits such that the weighted average complies with the 2.9 lbs VOC per gallon coating limit, or by using DERs.
Sturm, Ruger & Company located in Newport, New Hampshire, produces a variety of steel investment castings in the manufacture of firearms. NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD-03-001 to the facility on October 13, 2003, and re-issued it in amended form shortly thereafter on December 1, 2003. The order contains VOC limits for coatings used in the facility's woodworking spray booths and paint mixing rooms, and also contains a number of work practice and housekeeping standards to minimize emissions. The order also contains a 10 gallon daily maximum use amount for touch-up and repair finishing materials, compliance standards for cold cleaning operations at the facility, and a 1.0 lb VOC per gallon limit for metal parts coating operations other than rust-proofing. The VOC emission rate from the company's rust-proofing operation is limited to 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds. The company is also required to achieve an 81% reduction in VOC emissions from its flash de-wax process.
The Textile Tapes Corporation located in Gonic, New Hampshire, operates two coating lines that coat woven and non-woven materials with adhesive in the production of tapes and coated products. The NH-DES issued an initial VOC RACT order to the facility on December 9, 1996, and EPA approved that order into the New Hampshire SIP on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11600). On August 31, 2007, NH-DES submitted an amended VOC RACT order to EPA as a SIP revision request. Since the initial order was issued in 1996, a number of revisions have been made to the order, as follows. In 1998, the company requested and was granted permission to use a generic release coating that had not been addressed in the order issued in 1996. In 1999, the company requested
In 2006, Textile Tapes requested permission to use a coating that exceeds the 2.9 lb/gal emission limit required by Env-A 1204.10(c) of New Hampshire's air pollution control regulations. NH-DES required the company to purchase DER credits as provided for within Env-A 3100 of New Hampshire's air pollution control regulations. The facility complied by purchasing 4 DER credits from the Public Service Company of New Hampshire on October 3, 2006. New Hampshire issued amended order ARD-96-001 to Textile Tapes with an effective date of August 10, 2007. The amended order allows the company to self-generate DER credits needed to compensate for their non-compliant coating via the over-control achieved by the recuperative thermal oxidizer. New Hampshire submitted the amended order to EPA as a SIP revision request on August 31, 2007, and we are approving the amended order into the New Hampshire SIP in this direct final rulemaking.
TFX Medical Incorporated operates a facility in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, where it manufactures tubing for automotive and medical applications and devices. The manufacturing process involves extruding a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene resin with a hydrocarbon solvent and then curing the tubing in ovens. The facility operates a recuperative thermal oxidizer to control VOC emissions from the extruder lines and curing ovens. On August 7, 2007, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD 07-002 to the company. The order requires the company to reduce VOC emissions by a minimum of 81%, and the company achieves this obligation primarily by use of the thermal oxidizer. During times that the thermal oxidizer is not able to meet this control requirement, the order allows the company to comply by using DERs.
Webster Valve, Incorporated operates a facility in Franklin, New Hampshire, that is engaged in the manufacture of valves, regulators, and backflow prevention devices for plumbing, heating, and water quality applications. There are 6 spray booths at the facility where various coatings are applied to the product. On March 21, 2007, NH-DES issued VOC RACT order ARD 07-001 to the company. The order contains the following VOC content limits: for clear and transparent top coats 4.3 lbs VOC per gallon of coating, as applied, excluding water and exempt coatings; for coatings used in extreme environmental conditions, and for air dried coatings, 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon of coating; and for all other coatings, 3.0 lbs VOC per gallon of coating. The order also allows the company to comply with VOC RACT by using DERs.
EPA agrees with New Hampshire's RACT determinations for the eleven sources listed above, and therefore we are approving the single source VOC RACT orders for these sources, with the exception of the order for the Mectrol Corporation, as NH-DES requested withdrawal of the SIP revision for that facility. In instances where New Hampshire has required air pollution capture and control equipment, a minimum 81% reduction has been required to be achieved. The VOC RACT orders contain acceptable levels of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions to enable the state to effectively track compliance at these facilities. Additionally, we are also fully approving Env-A 1204.27, New Hampshire's requirements for miscellaneous and multi-category sources, for all parts of the state.
On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted a revised version of its NO
Regarding the emergency generator related revisions, the state noted that after the initial provisions for emergency generators were adopted in 1994, NH-DES received numerous complaints that an aspect of the rule regarding ignition timing was causing many facilities to encounter difficulty ensuring that a continuous supply of electricity could be provided by the generator. New Hampshire prepared an analysis of the emissions impact that removal of this provision would cause and determined that the impact would be minimal, and so a change was made to the emergency generator regulation providing relief from this provision.
On July 9, 2007, New Hampshire submitted additional revisions to Env-A 1211 as a SIP revision request. The revisions included a change to the testing requirements for auxiliary boilers with a heat input of between 5 million and 50 million BTUs, removed a provision that had allowed such boilers to meet a less stringent NO
In today's action, we are approving the updated version of Env-A 1211 that New Hampshire submitted on March 12, 2003, and updated on July 9, 2007, into the New Hampshire SIP. It should be noted that additional NO
Additionally, we are approving NO
Anheuser Busch operates a brewery in Merrimack, New Hampshire. The significant NO
Newington Energy operates a 525 megawatt combined cycle electric generation facility in Newington, New Hampshire. Other equipment at the facility includes a natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler, eight natural gas-fired fuel gas heaters, one diesel fired emergency generator, and one diesel fired firewater pump. On June 20, 2007, NH-DES issued NO
The Public Service Company of New Hampshire's (PSNH) Schiller Station is a 153 megawatt fossil fuel fired electric generating station located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Electric power is produced at the facility by three utility boilers, one combustion turbine that operates as a load shaving unit, and one emergency generator. On August 4, 2006, NH-DES issued NO
Waste Management operates a facility in Rochester, New Hampshire that consists of two, closed municipal solid waste landfills, one active municipal solid waste landfill, a materials recovery facility, a leachate treatment plant, and two landfill gas to energy plants. On August 26, 2002, NH-DES issued NO
EPA agrees that the NO
On March 15, 1983, EPA approved New Hampshire's Env-A 800, testing and monitoring requirements for air pollution sources into the New Hampshire SIP. Additional updates to these requirements were subsequently incorporated in the New Hampshire SIP as noted within 40 CFR 52.1525.
On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire submitted revisions to Env-A 800 to EPA as a SIP revision request. The revisions include simplifications to some procedures and delineates what methods should be used when monitoring emissions and checking the accuracy of CEM systems. Additionally, the amended rule contains a requirement that a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) be performed annually on each CEM system. If the system does not pass the RATA, the new rule requires that another full audit be conducted, whereas the prior version of the rule only required a partial audit be done in such circumstances. The state submitted additional revisions to Env-A 800 to EPA as a SIP revision request on July 9, 2007. The July 9, 2007 submittal contained revisions to Env-A 803.03 and Env-A 803.04, primarily with regard to requirements for small boilers and emergency generators. We are approving New Hampshire's revised version of Env-A 800 as submitted on March 12, 2003 and revised on July 9, 2007, with the exception of Env-A 807 pertaining to requirements regarding testing and monitoring for opacity. We are taking no action with regard to Env-A 807.
On March 15, 1983, EPA approved Env-A 900, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air pollution sources, into the New Hampshire SIP. Additional updates to these requirements were subsequently incorporated in the New Hampshire SIP as noted within 40 CFR 52.1525.
On November 14, 2003, New Hampshire submitted an updated version of Env-A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, to EPA as a SIP revision request. New Hampshire's submittal was prompted by their re-adoption of the rule with amendments. The amendments included clarifying language, a re-alignment of the reporting date for the annual emission statement requirement, a repeal of a provision requiring reporting of malfunctions and replacement of that provision with a recordkeeping and reporting requirement for permit deviations, and a re-organization of the previously adopted rule.
On July 6, 2012, New Hampshire submitted an updated version of Env-A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, to EPA as a SIP revision request. The revised version of Env-A 900 completely supersedes the older version of Env-A 900 that New Hampshire had submitted in 2003.
At this time, we are not taking action on Env-A 912 (Alternative Time Periods), nor on the provisions required relating to Title V sources that New Hampshire requested not be incorporated into its SIP.
In today's action, we are approving New Hampshire's July 6, 2012 revised version of Env-A 900, with the exceptions of (1) the provisions relating to 40 CFR Part 70 contained within Env-A 907 and Env-A 911, and (2) the provisions of Env-A 912 (Alternative Time Periods).
EPA is approving SIP revisions submitted by the State of New Hampshire. EPA is approving New Hampshire's January 28, 2008 RACT certification and negative declarations as meeting RACT for the 1997 8-hour standard. Additionally, we are approving the following portions of New Hampshire's air pollution control requirements: Env-A 800, Testing and Monitoring Procedures, with the exception of Env-A 807, Testing for Opacity of Emissions; Env-A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, with the exceptions of certain provisions within Env-A 907 and Env-A 911, and the entirety of Env-A 912; Env-A 1200, Volatile Organic Compound RACT; and,
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 4, 2013 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 January 4, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, 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.
The revisions and additions read as follows.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Arizona pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM
The Clean Air Act requires that each State adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. Arizona has met most of the applicable requirements. Where EPA is disapproving, in part, Arizona's SIP revisions, several of the deficiencies have already been addressed by a federal implementation plan (FIP). The remaining deficiencies are subject to a two-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves an adequate SIP revision prior to that time. EPA remains committed to working with Arizona to develop such a SIP revision.
EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398. The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at
Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4152,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone
On June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38239), EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part several SIP revisions submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
We are taking final action on all three submittals because they collectively address the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
The rationale supporting EPA's actions, including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRs) and associated technical support documents (TSDs)
The public comment period for our proposal published in the
During the respective comment periods we received one comment letter from ADEQ (“ADEQ comment letter”), which concerned the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128.
Section 128(a)(1) of the CAA provides: “Each applicable plan shall contain requirements that * * * any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under [the Act] shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under [the Act].” Two elements of this provision prevent it from being satisfied by recusal alone.
First, the “public interest” and “significant income” requirements of section 128(a)(1) apply to a “majority of members” of a “board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under [the CAA].” The use of the plural in “permits” and “orders” tends to indicate that the relevant board or body is defined by its authority to approve permits and enforcement orders, and not by the particular subset of the board acting on a single given permit or enforcement order. A board member may recuse himself from a particular permit or enforcement order proceeding in order to avoid a conflict of interest and yet remain a member of that board. Under these circumstances, his conflict of interest must still be considered in determining whether the board as a whole meets the majority membership requirement of section 128(a)(1).
Second, the “significant portion of income” requirement is determined by reference to “persons subject to permits or enforcement orders”. A permit holder is legally bound by a permit and is therefore “subject to” it. Similar reasoning applies to a person legally bound by a final enforcement order. Any reasonable interpretation of “subject to” must at a minimum include persons already legally bound by a final permit or final enforcement order. Yet a recusal requirement, such as that provided by ARS 38-503(B), fails to ensure that a majority of members do not derive a significant portion of their income from persons who already have permits or are already under a final enforcement order.
Thus, even assuming, for argument's sake, that ARS 38-503(B) could meet the “public interest” requirement of section 128(a)(1), it clearly does not, by itself, fulfill the “significant income” requirement. This interpretation is consistent with EPA's existing guidance on Section 128. In particular, in 1978, EPA issued a guidance memorandum
While we agree that, at the time of appointment to a board or agency, it is not possible to identify future conflicts of interest that may result from future permits or enforcement orders, we note that it
Arizona's conflict of interest statutes thus leave a gap with respect to the CAA section 128(a)(1) requirement that boards that approve permits or enforcement orders have “at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under [the Act].” However, Arizona's county hearing board statute, ARS 49-478, which we proposed to approve and thus to incorporate into the Arizona SIP, requires that, for county air quality hearing boards, “[a]t least three [of five] members shall not have a substantial interest, as defined in [ARS] 38-502, in any person required to obtain a permit pursuant to this article.” Thus, ARS 49-478 partially fills the gap between the Arizona conflict of interest statutes and the board membership requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) by establishing a majority membership requirement.
As noted in our proposal, Pima County Code 17.04.190 extends this majority membership requirement to interests in persons subject to enforcement orders.
In this case, the interpretations referred to in our proposal and set out in our TSD
While we do not necessarily agree that these interpretations are subject to the requirements of APA section 552, we note that our proposal, as published in the
Our final, partial disapproval triggers a two-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the identified deficiency. However, the State can remedy the deficiency prior to such FIP promulgation. If ADEQ can submit a SIP revision that meets EPA approval within the next two years, EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP would be discharged.
As noted in the TSD, the CAA requires that section 128 must be implemented through SIP-approved, federally enforceable provisions. However, the Act does not prescribe the exact means of implementation. The state and counties now have the opportunity to consider statutory or regulatory revisions to submit to EPA as a SIP revision to remedy this narrow deficiency. We stand ready to work with ADEQ and Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties to develop this revision.
EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part the Arizona Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Interstate transport (for 2006 24-hour PM
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement and international air pollution.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i): Adequate resources and legal authority.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (in part): Conflict of interest.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii): State oversight of local or regional government agencies.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes (for 1997 and 2006 PM
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government officials and public notification.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
In addition, we are approving into the SIP certain statutory and regulatory provisions included in the 2009 Infrastructure SIP. These are discussed further in our proposal notices, accompanying TSDs, and in Arizona's August 24, 2012 submittal, all available in the docket for today's action.
Simultaneously, EPA is disapproving Arizona's Infrastructure SIP submittals for 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Permit program for regulation of new and modified stationary sources under part C of title I of the Act (prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)).
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): Provision to prohibit interference with other states' PSD measures (for 2006 24-hour PM
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement and international air pollution.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (in part): Conflict of interest.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD.
• Section 110 (a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of monitoring data.
On June 1, 2012 ADEQ submitted the “Proposed Supplement to the Arizona State Implementation Plan under Clean Air act Section 110(a)(1) and (2): Implementation of [1997 PM
As explained in the NPRs and TSD, our disapprovals related to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), and (K) result from the conclusion that the Arizona SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act. For these disapprovals, both the Maricopa County Air Quality Department and the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA. 40
EPA takes a disapproval of a state plan very seriously. Rather than implement a FIP, we believe that it is preferable, and preferred in the provisions of the Clean Air Act, for states to implement the CAA requirements through state provisions that are developed and adopted by the state and approved into the SIP by EPA. A state plan need not contain exactly the same provisions that EPA might require, but EPA must be able to find that the state plan is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in accordance with its obligations under section 110(k). Further, EPA's oversight role requires that it assure consistent implementation of Clean Air Act requirements by states across the country, even while acknowledging that individual decisions from source to source or state to state may not have identical outcomes. EPA believes these disapprovals are the only path that is consistent with the Act at this time.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of the CAA (CAA sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. The Arizona Infrastructure SIP was not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, our partial disapproval of Arizona's Infrastructure SIP Submittals does not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a State implementation plan submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. For the reasons provided in our proposed rules and associated TSDs, and in our responses to comments above, EPA is partially disapproving Arizona's Infrastructure SIP Submittals based on our conclusion that it does not fully satisfy the following CAA section 110(a) requirements: (1) With respect to those areas under ADEQ and Pinal County jurisdiction, the PSD program requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) regarding regulation of nitrogen oxides (NO
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain State requirements, and
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the partial approval and partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves certain other pre-existing requirements, under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP on which EPA is taking action would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
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 January 4, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(152) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(153) The following plan was submitted on October 14, 2009, by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(l)
(m)
(n)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) portions of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the
These rules will be effective on December 5, 2012.
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0470 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4118,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Arizona SIP in the
We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation. Our proposed approval of these rules responded to a June 1, 2012 request from the State to parallel process versions of these rules. Our proposal explained that the above rules had not previously been submitted to us or had been adopted locally but had not been adopted specifically for purposes of approval into the federally enforceable SIP under CAA section 110.
On August 24, 2012, ADEQ submitted to EPA the versions of ADEQ 18-2-313 and 18-2-327 that were adopted locally on February 15, 2001 and December 7, 1995 respectively. On June 19, 2012, ADEQ submitted to EPA the version of Maricopa Rule 100, Section 500 that was adopted locally on March 15, 2006. On September 5, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal for ADEQ Rules 18-2-313 and 18-2-327, and MCAQD Rule 100, Section 500 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. We have reviewed these versions of the rules, and they are unchanged from the versions we proposed for approval on June 27, 2012.
On June 27, 2012, we also proposed approval of PCDEQ Rules 17.12.040 and 17.24.040 contingent upon EPA's receipt of fully adopted rules that satisfy state and local procedural requirements for SIP submittals. PCDEQ Rule 17.12.040 was not submitted to EPA and while PCDEQ Rule 17.24.040 was submitted on August 24, 2012, it did not include evidence of public notice as required by 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. As such, we are not finalizing our action on these rules at this time. If these rules are subsequently submitted to EPA, we may finalize their approval in a future rulemaking contingent upon the rules being substantially identical to the rules in our June 27, 2012 proposed action, and that the adopted rules satisfy relevant requirements for SIP submittals.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving Maricopa Rule 100, Section 500, ADEQ Rule 18-2-313 and ADEQ Rule 18-2-327 into the Arizona SIP.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2013. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(152) The following plan was submitted August 24, 2012, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporated by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(
(
(B) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
(
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The States of Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and North Dakota have requested that we delegate permitting for falconry to the State, as provided under our regulations. We have reviewed regulations and supporting materials provided by these States, and have concluded that their regulations comply with the Federal regulations. We change the falconry regulations accordingly.
This rule is effective January 1, 2013.
Dr. George T. Allen, 703-358-1825.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule in the
The States of Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and North Dakota have submitted revised falconry regulations and supporting materials and have requested to be allowed to operate under the revised Federal regulations. We have reviewed the regulations administered by these States and have determined that their regulations meet the requirements of 50 CFR 21.29(b). According to the regulations at § 21.29(b)(4), we must issue a rule to add a State to the list at § 21.29(b)(10) of approved States with a falconry program. Therefore, we change the Federal regulations accordingly, and a Federal permit will no longer be required to practice falconry in the States of Alaska, Arizona, Kansas,
In accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
This is a ministerial and nondiscretionary action that must be enacted promptly to enable the subject States to assume all responsibilities of falconry permitting by January 1, 2013, the effective date of this regulatory amendment. Further, the relevant regulation at 50 CFR 21.29 governing the transfer of permitting authority to these States has already been subject to public notice and comment procedures. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), we did not publish a proposed rule in regard to this rulemaking action because, for good cause as stated above, we found prior public notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule delegates authority to States that have requested it, and those States have already changed their falconry regulations. This rule does not change falconers' costs for practicing their sport, nor does it affect businesses that provide equipment or supplies for falconry. Consequently, we certify that, because this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. There are no costs to permittees or any other part of the economy associated with this regulations change.
b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The practice of falconry does not significantly affect costs or prices in any sector of the economy.
c. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Falconry is an endeavor of private individuals. Neither regulation nor practice of falconry significantly affects business activities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we have determined the following:
a. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments in a negative way. A small government agency plan is not required. The eight States affected by this rule applied for the authority to issue permits for the practice of falconry.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. It is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. The States being delegated authority to issue permits to conduct falconry have requested that authority. No significant economic impacts are expected to result from the State regulation of falconry.
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
We examined this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the Migratory Bird Permits Program and assigned OMB control number 1018-0022, which expires November 30, 2013. This regulation change does not add to the
We evaluated the environmental impacts of the changes to these regulations, and determined that this rule does not have any environmental impacts. Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, we determined that these regulatory changes do not have a significant effect on the human environment.
Under the guidance in Appendix 1 of the Department of the Interior Manual at 516 DM 2, we conclude that the regulatory changes are categorically excluded because they “have no or minor potential environmental impact” (516 DM 2, Appendix 1A(1)). No more comprehensive NEPA analysis of the regulations change is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that this rule will not interfere with Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate falconry on Tribal lands.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule only affects the practice of falconry in the United States, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and will not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that “The Secretary [of the Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). Delegating falconry permitting authority to States with approved programs will not affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats in the United States.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend subpart C of part 21, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model H-36, HK 36 R, HK 36 TS, and HK 36 TTS airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as installation of an unsuitable self-locking nut on the bell crank of the elevator push rod that can cause failure of the elevator, resulting in loss of control. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straβe 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2012-0173, dated September 3, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
A HK 36 R aeroplane recently experienced an in-flight elevator control failure after take-off which resulted in an uncontrolled landing. The results of the subsequent investigation revealed that the elevator control rod had disconnected from the elevator bell crank in the tail section of the fuselage, as a result of installation of a non-suitable self-locking nut.
The subsequent design review of the affected elevator bell crank joint with elevator control rod identified that its current configuration has a failure potential when components such as thin self-securing nuts and bearings are aging and original clearance of the control system cannot be maintained in service. Both the designs of elevator bell crank and elevator control rod are installed in DV 20 aeroplanes.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of elevator control failure, likely resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane, consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To address this concern, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) published Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 36-108 and MSB 20-061/1 to improve the affected elevator control joint by embodiment of new design which prevents elevator bell crank and push rod disconnection.
For reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of aeroplane elevator bell cranks with improved parts and prohibits installation of any previous design elevator bell crank.
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 36-108, and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-108, both dated February 28, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 25 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $352 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $13,050, or $522 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(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 AD:
We must receive comments by December 20, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to the following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH models and serial number (S/N) airplanes, certificated in any category: H-36 and HK 36 R airplanes, S/Ns 36.300 through 36.414, HK 36 TS airplanes, S/Ns 36.415 and 36.416; and HK 36 TTS airplane, S/N 36.393.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as installation of an unsuitable self-locking nut on the bell crank of the elevator push rod that can cause failure of the elevator, resulting in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to prevent disconnection of the elevator bell crank and push rod.
Unless already done, do the following actions following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 36-108, and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-108, both dated February 28, 2012:
(1) Within the next 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace each elevator bell crank assembly with part number (P/N) 820-2730-12-00, and replace each elevator bell crank mount with P/N 820-2730-11-00.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, only install on the airplane elevator bell crank assemblies with P/N 820-2730-12-00 and elevator bell crank mounts with P/N 820-2730-11-00.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2012-0173, dated
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate previously held by Raytheon Aircraft Company; Beech Aircraft Corporation) Model 400A airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the wiring for the 5-volt direct current (DC) system is undersized and does not have adequate circuit protection for the smaller gauge wire. This proposed AD would require installing an in-line fuse in the 5-volt DC system for each of the five instrument lighting control power supplies. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the wiring, which could result in smoke in the cockpit, loss of cockpit lighting, and potential damage to surrounding wiring for other cockpit equipment such as the stick shaker function or angle-of-attack indicators.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 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 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, KS 67201-0085; telephone 316-676-8238; fax 316-676-6706; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Richard Rejniak, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch, ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4128; fax (316) 946-4107; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report that the wiring for the 5-volt DC system is undersized and does not have adequate circuit protection for the smaller gauge wire. The wire is adequate for normal electrical loads, but it cannot safely handle the power supply's maximum current. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the wiring, which could result in smoke in the cockpit, loss of cockpit lighting, and potential damage to surrounding wiring for other cockpit equipment such as the stick shaker function or angle-of-attack indicators.
We reviewed Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 33-4002, dated October 2010. The service information describes procedures for installing an in-line fuse in the 5-volt DC system for each of the five instrument lighting control power supplies.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 33-4002, dated October 2010, includes a note in the Accomplishment Instructions to inform operators to contact Hawker Beechcraft “should any difficulty be encountered”
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 421 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(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 20, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate previously held by Raytheon Aircraft Company; Beech Aircraft Corporation) Model 400A airplanes having serial numbers RK-45, and RK-49 through RK 353 inclusive.
(2) Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate previously held by Raytheon Aircraft Company; Beech Aircraft Corporation) Model 400A airplanes (marketed as Hawker 400XP airplanes) having serial numbers RK-354 through RK-594 inclusive.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2497; Electrical Power System Wiring.
This AD was prompted by a report that the wiring for the 5-volt direct current (DC) system is undersized and does not have adequate circuit protection for the smaller gauge wire. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the wiring, which could result in smoke in the cockpit, loss of cockpit lighting, and potential damage to surrounding wiring for other cockpit equipment such as the stick shaker function or angle-of-attack indicators.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 400 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install an in-line fuse assembly in the 5-volt DC output circuit on each of the five instrument lighting power supplies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 33-4002, dated October 2010. A note in the Accomplishment Instructions of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 33-4002, dated October 2010, instructs operators to contact Hawker Beechcraft if any difficulty is encountered in accomplishing the service bulletin. However, any deviation from the instructions provided in Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 33-4002, dated October 2010, must be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under paragraph (i) of this AD.
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided that the flight is conducted under visual flight rules (VFR) day conditions.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
(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 Richard Rejniak, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch, ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4128; fax (316) 946-4107; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Department 62, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, KS 67201-0085; telephone 316-676-8238; fax 316-676-6706; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of chafing found on the main landing gear (MLG) yoke. The chafing was attributed to contact between the nacelle fire detection wires and the MLG yoke. This proposed AD would require inspections of the nacelle fire detection wires and the MLG yoke for damage; replacing nacelle fire detection wires, if necessary; repairing the MLG yoke, if necessary; and installing new brackets and associated hardware to secure the fire detection wires. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing between the nacelle fire detection wires and the MLG yoke. Chafing could lead to cracking and subsequent failure of the MLG yoke, which could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane. In addition, chafing of the nacelle fire detection wires could cause them to fail and prevent the detection of a fire in the nacelle assembly.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7301; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-15, dated April 30, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
There have been two (2) in-service reports of chafing found on the main landing gear (MLG) yoke. The chafing was attributed to contact between the nacelle fire detection wire and the MLG yoke. This chafing may lead to cracking and subsequent failure of the MLG yoke.
Failure of the MLG yoke could adversely affect the safe landing of the aeroplane. In addition, failure of the fire detection wire could prevent the detection of a fire in the nacelle assembly.
This [Canadian] Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates the [detailed] inspection of the nacelle fire detection wires and [detailed inspection of the] MLG yoke for damage [chafing, nicks, cracking] and the installation of new brackets to secure the fire detection wire to prevent chafing against the MLG yoke [and corrective actions if necessary].
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012. The actions described in this service bulletin are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Although the MCAI specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method approved by either the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA (or its delegated agent).
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 80 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $332 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $46,960, or $587 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by December 20, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001 through 4382 inclusive.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of chafing found on the main landing gear (MLG) yoke. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing between the nacelle fire detection wires and the MLG yoke. Chafing could lead to cracking and subsequent failure of the MLG yoke, which could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane. In addition, chafing of the nacelle fire detection wires could cause them to fail and prevent the detection of a fire in the nacelle assembly.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012.
(1) Do a detailed inspection of the left and right nacelle fire detection wires for damage (i.e., chafing), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012. If damage is found on any nacelle fire detection wire: Before further flight, remove and replace the damaged wire with a new wire, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012.
(2) Do a detailed inspection of the MLG yoke for damage (e.g., chafing, nicks, cracking).
(i) If any damage is found within the limitations specified in Figure 8 of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012: Before further flight, repair the MLG yoke, in accordance with Figure 9, steps 1 through 10, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012.
(ii) If any damage exceeds the limitations specified in Figure 8 of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January
(3) Install new brackets and associated hardware, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, dated December 19, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-15, dated April 30, 2012; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-11, Revision A, dated January 25, 2012; for related information.
(2) For 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that certain ceramic terminal blocks, through which the wiring for the engine fire extinguishers, fire detection circuits, and engine and intake anti-ice system are routed, have been found to have moisture ingress which can degrade the insulation resistance of the ceramic terminal blocks. This proposed AD would require a one-time insulation resistance test of ceramic terminal blocks, and if necessary, replacement of the blocks. We are proposing this AD to prevent latent failure of the number 2 fire bottle, which, in the event of an engine fire, could result in failure of the fire bottle to discharge when activated and possibly preventing the flightcrew from extinguishing an engine fire.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0040, dated March 13, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Moisture ingress has been discovered on certain ceramic terminal blocks, mounted on the engine cowlings, through which the wiring for the engine fire extinguishers, fire detection circuits and engine and intake anti ice system are routed. The affected terminal blocks were introduced through BAE Systems SB 71-077-01693A (modification HCM01693A) during the period 2002-2004, as this modification was mandated by CAA UK AD 005-10-2001 [which corresponds with FAA AD 2003-03-10, Amendment 39-13034 (68 FR 4902, January 31, 2003)]. Moisture ingress has a detrimental effect on the insulation resistance of the ceramic terminal block with the resultant possibility of interconnections between all terminals. Most of the possible failure conditions in the terminal block should result in an evident warning or other indication. However, the functional loss of the number 2 fire bottle would be a dormant failure.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in the failure of a fire bottle to discharge when activated, possibly preventing the flight crew in extinguishing an engine fire.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of the ceramic terminal blocks to determine the insulation resistance and, depending on findings, replacement of terminal blocks, and the reporting of the results to the BAE Systems. These will be used to establish a suitable repetitive inspection interval, which is expected to be introduced through the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) process.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service Bulletin 24-143, Revision 1, dated October 2, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Although the MCAI or service information tells you to submit information to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that such submittal is not required.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,700, or $850 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $949, for a cost of $1,034 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by December 20, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24: Electrical Power.
This AD was prompted by a report that certain ceramic terminal blocks, through which the wiring for the engine fire extinguishers, fire detection circuits, and engine and intake anti-ice system are routed, have been found to have moisture ingress
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 4,000 flight cycles or 18 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do an insulation resistance test on each terminal block, in accordance with paragraphs 2.C., 2.D., 2.E., and 2.F. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 24-143, Revision 1, dated October 2, 2012.
If, during the test required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any terminal block is found to have a value of less than 50 megohms, before next flight, replace it with a new or serviceable terminal block, in accordance with paragraph 2.G. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 24-143, Revision 1, dated October 2, 2012.
Where BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 24-143, Revision 1, dated October 2, 2012, specifies to complete the test result sheets in Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the inspection report in Appendix 6, and send the information to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, this AD does not require that action.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 24-143, dated September 26, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012-0040, dated March 13, 2012; and Bae Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 24-143, Revision 1, dated October 2, 2012; for related information.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as multiple cracks found on the outboard aileron hinge support of a P2006T airplane during an inspection. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Airworthiness Office, Via Maiorise—81043 Capua (CE) Italy; telephone: +39 0823 620134; fax: +39 0823 622899; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2012-0146, dated August 6, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During a 100 hour inspection of a P2006T aeroplane, multiple cracks were detected on the outboard aileron hinge support, part number (P/N) 26-1-1082-1/3.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could jeopardize the wing structural integrity.
For the reason described above, this AD requires to inspect for crack detection all aileron hinge supports and to accomplish the applicable corrective actions.
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl has issued Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Service Bulletin No. SB 102-CS-Rev2, dated July 3, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $297.50, or $42.50 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $460, for a cost of $715 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by December 20, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl P2006T airplanes, serial numbers 001/US through 9999/US, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by multiple cracks found on the outboard aileron hinge support of a P2006T airplane during an inspection. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Unless already done, do the following actions following Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Service Bulletin No. SB 102-CS-Rev2, dated July 3, 2012:
(1) At the compliance times below, inspect all aileron hinge supports part numbers (P/N) 26-1-1082-1/3, P/N 26-1-1081-1/3, P/N 26-1-1081-2/4, and P/N 26-1-1082-2/4 for cracks:
(i)
(ii)
(2) If a crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the applicable hinge support(s) with an airworthy part.
This AD provides credit for the actions required in this AD if already done before the effective date of this AD following Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Service Bulletin No. SB 102-CS-Rev1, dated June 29, 2012; or Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Service Bulletin No. SB 102-CS-Rev2, dated July 3, 2012.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2012-0146, dated August 6, 2012; and Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Service Bulletin No. SB 102-CS-Rev2, dated July 3, 2012, for related information. For service information related to this AD, contact Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Airworthiness Office, Via Maiorise—81043 Capua (CE) Italy; telephone: +39 0823 620134; fax: +39 0823 622899; email:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its adjudication regulation regarding a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment. The amendment is necessary to incorporate statutory changes made by the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010.
Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2013.
Written comments may be submitted through
Nancy Copeland, Consultant, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9487. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Section 803 of Public Law 111-275, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, amended subsection 3901(1)(A) of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), by reformatting the statute and adding “severe burn injury (as determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary)” as one of the disabilities that VA will consider when making a determination of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment. Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary in 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and 3901(1)(A)(iv), as added by the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 3.808 to define the term “severe burn injury.”
The purpose of 38 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902 is to provide an automotive allowance and adaptive equipment to veterans having certain severe disabilities that may impair their ability to operate a standard motor vehicle. Prior to the enactment of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, the automobile allowance was authorized only for the loss or permanent loss of use of one or both hands or feet or for permanent impairment of vision of both eyes. In discussing the proposed extension of this benefit to veterans with severe burn
For purposes of determining eligibility of disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment, VA proposes to define severe burn injury as a disability resulting from a severe burn that is a deep partial thickness or full-thickness burn resulting in scar formation that causes contractures and limits motion of one or more extremities or the trunk and precludes effective operation of an automobile.
Skin that has experienced deep partial and full-thickness burns is never restored to normal. In a deep partial thickness burn, there is complete destruction of the epidermis and severe damage to the dermal layer. Healing may occur with hypertrophic scars and keloid formation. In a full-thickness burn, there is complete destruction of the epidermis and dermis, and there may be some damage to the underlying subcutaneous fat layer. Scar tissue from these types of burns is thin, fragile, and prone to chronic ulceration. Scars resulting from these burns may cause disfigurement. The most frequent cause of disability is burn scar contracture. This residual prohibits movement of a joint in its normal range of motion and influences not only the underlying joint but also the adjacent joints. Burn scar contracture is not only limited to the extremities but also can occur as a result of burns to the trunk, resulting in postural impairments.
Although full-thickness burns are generally more disabling than deep partial thickness burns, depending upon location, a deep partial thickness burn may result in more scarring with contracture limiting motion and, therefore, be more disabling than a full-thickness burn. For example, a deep partial thickness burn resulting in limited motion may involve an important joint such as a thumb, hand, or elbow which are more crucial in operating an automobile than other joints. Additionally, some individuals tend to be significant scar formers based on race and ethnicity. For example, one individual with a deep partial thickness burn may be more significantly disabled due to the exuberance of scar formation with contractures than another individual with a well treated full-thickness burn. As such, the category of burn injury is not always the predictor of disability. Rather, disability must be based on the eventual limitation of motion of which joint is involved. For all these reasons, VA proposes to consider both “deep partial thickness burns” and “full-thickness burns” as severe burn injuries.
We believe that VA's definition of severe burn injury for purposes of determining eligibility of disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces for financial assistance concerning the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment certification is consistent with congressional intent. This definition generally reflects the purpose found at 38 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902 to authorize the automobile allowance or other conveyance and adaptive equipment for severely disabling conditions affecting the veteran's ability or military member's ability to operate a standard automobile in a safe and effective manner. As such, VA believes that it is fair and reasonable to define a severe burn injury as a deep partial thickness or full-thickness burn resulting in scar formation that causes contractures and limits motion of one or more extremities or the trunk and precludes effective operation of an automobile.
Therefore, in 38 CFR 3.808, VA would redesignate current paragraph (b)(4) as (b)(5) and add a new paragraph (b)(4) that adds “severe burn injury,” and the criteria noted above, as one of the conditions that determines entitlement for a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment. Additionally, VA would replace the title “Automobiles or other conveyances; certification” with “Automobiles or other conveyances and adaptive equipment; certification” to mirror the statutory provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902. Finally, VA would revise the authority citation for paragraph (b) to include 38 U.S.C. 3901. Since the statutory amendment authorizing this regulatory change became effective on October 1, 2011, VA would apply this rule to all claims for benefits received on or after October 1, 2011.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would not affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.100, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; and 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 24, 2012,for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 3 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 3.808 as follows:
a. Revise the section heading.
b. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as (b)(5).
c. Add a new paragraph (b)(4).
d. Revise the authority citation at the end of paragraph (b).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) A severe burn injury. For the purposes of this section, a severe burn injury is defined as follows:
(i) Deep partial thickness or full-thickness burns resulting in scar formation that causes contractures and limits motion of one or more extremities or the trunk and precludes effective operation of an automobile.
(5) For adaptive equipment eligibility only, ankylosis of one or both knees or one or both hips.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by the State of New Hampshire. These SIP revisions consist of a demonstration that New Hampshire meets the requirements of reasonably available control technology for oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds set forth by the Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, revisions to existing rules controlling these pollutants, and source-specific orders for fifteen individual sources. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. RO1-OAR-2009-0451 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, fax number (617) 918-0046, email
In the Final Rules Section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve three revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Two of these revisions relate to an amendment to Arizona's Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection Programs that would exempt motorcycles in the Phoenix metropolitan area from emissions testing requirements. The third revision would expand the geographic area in which various air quality control measures, including the vehicle emissions inspection program but also including other control measures, apply in the Phoenix metropolitan area. EPA is proposing approval of these SIP revisions because we have found that they meet all applicable requirements and would not interfere with reasonable further progress or attainment of any of the national ambient air quality standards. EPA is proposing this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on State submittals of revisions to state implementation plans.
Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0552, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947-4152, email:
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
In May 1995, EPA approved Arizona's Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance (VEI) Programs as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or “Act”) and EPA's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance rule (“EPA's I/M rule” or “federal I/M rule”) as amended. See 60 FR 22518 (May 8, 1995). A “basic” I/M program was required in the Phoenix metropolitan area (referred to as “Area A”) due to the area's designation as a “moderate” nonattainment area for the carbon monoxide (CO) and the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standard”).
Since the Arizona VEI programs were originally approved in May 1995, EPA has amended the federal I/M rule several times to provide states with more flexibility in designing their programs but also to require testing of the on-board diagnostic (OBD) system. Since that time, Arizona has also made a number of changes to its enhanced and basic VEI programs.
In January 2003, we approved changes to the Arizona VEI programs submitted to us on July 6, 2001 and April 10, 2002, including the incorporation of OBD testing, an exemption for the first five model year vehicles from the programs on a rolling basis, replacement of the previously-approved remote sensing program in Phoenix with an on-road testing study, and legislative changes to the waiver provisions. See 68 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003). In our January 2003 final rule, we also approved the VEI program in the Phoenix area as meeting the enhanced I/M program performance standard.
In our January 2003 final rule, we also approved an expansion of the geographic area in which the VEI program in the Phoenix area applies, an area referred to as “Area A.” Area A, as approved in 2003, includes all of the metropolitan Phoenix carbon monoxide and 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas plus additional areas in Maricopa County to the north, east, and west, as well as a small portion of Yavapai County and the western portions of Pinal County. “Area A” is also used by the State of Arizona to identify the applicable area for implementation of a number of other air pollution control measures, including but not limited to the EPA-approved cleaner burning gasoline (CBG) and stage II vapor recovery programs. See, e.g., 69 FR 10161 (March 4, 2004) (approval of CBG program), and 77 FR 35279 (June 13, 2012) (approval of revised Stage II vapor recovery program). “Area A” is defined at Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 49-541, subsection (1).
In April 2004, we published a final rule governing the transition from the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the 8-hour ozone standard that we promulgated in 1997. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
In April 2004, we published a second final rule related to ozone, and in this other rule, we designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as a nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 69 FR 23858, at 23878 (April 30, 2004), and, later, classified the area as “Subpart 2/Marginal” for that standard, 77 FR 28424 (May 14, 2012). Thus, the requirement to continue to implement an enhanced I/M program continues to apply in the Phoenix metropolitan area based the area's designation and classification for the 1-hour ozone standard notwithstanding revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005.
In 2005, we approved maintenance plans and redesignation requests for both the carbon monoxide and 1-hour ozone standards in the Phoenix area. See 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005) (carbon monoxide redesignation request and maintenance plan approval), and 70 FR 34362 (June 14, 2005) (1-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan approval). Both approved maintenance plans include “Expansion of Area A Boundaries” as a contingency measure.
In March 2007, we approved changes to the Arizona VEI programs submitted to us on December 23, 2005 and October 3, 2006, including an exemption for collectible vehicles from VEI testing in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and collectible vehicles and motorcycles from VEI testing in the Tucson metropolitan area. See 72 FR 15046 (March 30, 2007). In our March 2007 rule, we also approved an updated performance evaluation standard for the VEI program in the Phoenix area; and new contingency measures.
On June 13, 2007, ADEQ submitted the
In March 2009, ADEQ submitted the
We have not yet taken action on the Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and do not propose action related to that plan herein. However, today's proposed approval of the expansion of Area A boundaries, as codified in amended ARS 49-541(1) and submitted on May 25, 2012 in connection with the 2012 Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan (discussed in the following section of this document), provides support for the Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan given its reliance on the expansion of Area A boundaries in maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard once the area is redesignated. EPA will take action on the Phoenix-Mesa Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan in one or more future rulemakings.
Lastly, in March 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). More recently, we designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as a “Marginal” nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard, effective July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). Such “Marginal” nonattainment areas must attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable but not later than July 20, 2015 (i.e., 3 years from July 20, 2012, the effective date of the nonattainment designation).
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the most recent statutory changes to its Basic and Enhanced VEI Programs as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) on November 6, 2009 (“2009 VEI SIP Revision”). The 2009 VEI SIP Revision submittal includes the SIP revision itself, divided into a non-regulatory portion, “Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Exemption of Motorcycles from Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Requirements in Area A” (October 2009), and a regulatory portion, House Bill (HB) 2280, as well as supporting materials related to legal authority, adoption, public process and technical analysis.
HB 2280 amends the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Section 49-542 by exempting motorcycles from emissions testing in Area A (i.e., the Phoenix area). Specifically, the amendments to ARS 49-542 are found in paragraphs or subparagraphs (F)(2)(e), (F)(3), (J)(2)(l), and (K) of that section of code. The changes to ARS Section 49-542 are self-implementing, which means that they become effective upon EPA approval as a revision to the Arizona SIP. Section 2 of HB 2280 provides that the exemption becomes effective upon EPA approval of a SIP revision on or before July 10, 2010.
In consultation with EPA concerning the VEI SIP Revision, ADEQ prepared additional information regarding the impacts of the motorcycle exemption on attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1987 PM
On May 25, 2012, ADEQ submitted
CAA section 110(l) requires revisions to a SIP to be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
On September 14 and 15, 2009, ADEQ published notices in newspapers of general circulation in the Phoenix area of public hearings on proposed revisions to the Arizona SIP to exempt motorcycles in Phoenix from emissions testing requirements under the Arizona VEI programs (i.e., a draft VEI SIP Revision). Public hearings were held on October 15, 2009 in Phoenix. On November 6, 2009, in accordance with Arizona law, ADEQ adopted these exemptions as set forth in “Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Exemption of Motorcycles from Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Requirements in Area A” (October 2009) as a revision to the Arizona SIP and submitted the revision to EPA for approval.
ADEQ followed a similar process in adopting and submitting the 2011 VEI SIP Addendum. ADEQ held a public hearing on December 15, 2010 in Phoenix on a draft VEI SIP Addendum and adopted the VEI SIP Addendum on January 11, 2011 in accordance with Arizona law prior to submittal to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
ADEQ also provided for public comment and hearing of the 2012 Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan. Specifically, ADEQ published notice of the start of a 30-day comment period on March 12, 2012. In this notice, ADEQ also provided notice of a public hearing that was, as scheduled, held on April 12, 2012. See exhibit 1 (“Public Hearing Process Documentation”) to appendix E to the 2012 Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan.
ADEQ's 2009 VEI SIP Revision, 2011 VEI SIP Addendum, and 2012 Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan submittal packages include evidence of public notice and hearing, ADEQ responses to public comments, and ADEQ adoption as described above, and, based on review of these materials, we find that ADEQ has met the procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
As noted in Section I, Introduction and Background, herein, Arizona's VEI programs were most recently approved as meeting federal I/M program requirements on March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15046). Although the Phoenix and Tucson areas have been redesignated to “attainment” for the CO NAAQS, the VEI programs continue to be relied upon to maintain the CO standard in those areas. Moreover, “enhanced” I/M remains an “applicable requirement” for the Phoenix area under our final rule implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.900(f) and 51.905(a)(1)) based on the designation of that area as a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (and designation as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour standard). Thus, to be approved, the VEI programs, as amended and evaluated herein, must continue to meet the relevant enforceability requirements for I/M programs in subpart S of 40 CFR part 51 and, for the Phoenix area with respect to ozone, the enhanced performance standard in 40 CFR 51.351. In the following paragraphs, we review ADEQ's 2009 VEI SIP Revision and 2011 VEI SIP Addendum to determine whether the amended VEI programs continue to meet federal I/M program requirements.
The aspects of I/M affected by the submitted revisions to the VEI programs and the expansion of Area A boundaries include geographic coverage, vehicle coverage and exemptions, compliance enforcement, and the performance standard evaluation.
EPA's I/M regulations require that state I/M programs be implemented in the entire urbanized area, based on the 1990 census. See 40 CFR 51.350. We have found in our approvals of the Arizona VEI program in 1995 and 2003 that the geographic coverage of the VEI program in the Phoenix area meets the minimum requirements of EPA's I/M regulations. Since then, no regulatory changes or new designations have changed the minimum requirements with respect to the geographic coverage of the I/M program in the Phoenix area, and thus, the expansion of the boundaries of Area A, which define the area in which the VEI program is implemented, is also acceptable.
The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs (including alternate low enhanced programs) assumes coverage of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and trucks. Light duty trucks are not included in the performance standard for basic I/M programs. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved. See 40 CFR 51.356.
The Arizona VEI programs approved by EPA in 1995 exempt several categories of vehicles from the emissions testing requirements. Such vehicle categories included, among others, vehicles manufactured in or before the 1966 model year and vehicles being sold between motor vehicle dealers. See 60 FR 22518, 22521 (May 8, 1995). In 2003, we approved revisions to the VEI programs including an exemption for the first five model year vehicles on a rolling basis. See 68 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003). In 2007, we exempted collectible vehicles from the Phoenix and Tucson areas and motorcycles from the Tucson area. The SIP revision we are acting on today would establish an additional vehicle category that would be exempt from emissions testing requirements: Motorcycles from the Phoenix area. Based on data for calendar year 2008, motorcycles make up approximately 38,100 (or 3.7 percent) of the 1,027,600 total number of vehicles subject to VEI in the Phoenix area. See table 9 on page 17 of the 2009 VEI SIP Revision.
Basic and enhanced I/M programs are not required to test any particular category of motor vehicles so long as the performance standard is met, and thus I/M programs are not required to test motorcycles. The effect of the new exemption for motorcycles on the continued ability of the VEI program in the Phoenix area to meet the enhanced I/M program performance standard is discussed below in Section III.B.3, “Performance Evaluation,” and the effect of the new exemptions on emissions and ambient air quality in Phoenix is discussed herein in Section III.C, “Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment And Maintenance Under CAA Section 110(l).”
Section 51.361 of title 40 of the CFR requires that denial of motor vehicle registration be the method used to ensure compliance with enhanced I/M programs. ARS Section 49-542(D) and Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-1007 requires that all vehicles must complete a vehicle emissions inspection to obtain a vehicle registration.
Exemption of motorcycles in the Phoenix area from emissions testing would be straightforward from the standpoint of compliance enforcement and would not undermine compliance enforcement for other types of vehicles that continue to be subject to the emissions testing requirements under the VEI program in the Phoenix area. Owners of motorcycles registered in the Phoenix area will simply receive a registration or re-registration form from the Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division that indicates “emissions test not required.”
Therefore, we find that the Arizona VEI programs, as amended to exempt motorcycles in the Phoenix area, would continue to meet the compliance enforcement requirements of 40 CFR 51.361.
As part of the 2009 VEI SIP Revision submittal, ADEQ provided an updated performance evaluation using the EPA's motor vehicle emissions model, MOBILE6.2.
For the updated evaluation, ADEQ developed and applied reduction factors
The results of ADEQ's analysis are summarized in Table 1 below, which shows that the emissions reduction benefits achieved by the Phoenix VEI program as amended are higher than those achieved under the performance standard. The amended Phoenix VEI program thus continues to achieve greater emissions reductions than the federal model program because the VEI program includes elements that go beyond federal I/M requirements. These include a requirement for a one-time only waiver, an implementation area beyond the nonattainment area boundaries, and denial of waivers for grossly-emitting vehicles.
Based on our review of the 2009 VEI SIP Revision, we find ADEQ's methods used to update the performance standard evaluation and use of the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard to be acceptable, and we find that the VEI program, as amended to exempt motorcycles in the Phoenix area from the emissions testing requirements, exceeds the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard in the Phoenix area as required under 40 CFR 51.351 and 51.905(a)(1).
Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. Section 110(l) states in relevant part: “The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.”
We interpret section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. We also interpret section 110(l) to require a demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. Thus, for example, modification of a SIP-approved measure may impact NO
The 2009 VEI SIP Revision submittal that seeks exemption of motorcycles from the Phoenix enhanced I/M program includes an evaluation of the effects of the revision to the VEI programs on ozone, carbon monoxide, PM
The 2009 report indicates that ADEQ used the EPA's motor vehicle emissions model program, MOBILE6.2, to estimate the emissions effects of the new exemptions. The methods used to gather data included acquisition of data from the State vehicle emissions inspections programs, other state agencies, air quality planning agencies and relevant air quality plans. We find that ADEQ used reasonable methods and appropriate models in estimating the emissions effects of the new exemptions. Table 2 below summarizes ADEQ's estimates by pollutant in units of metric tons per day (mtpd). Table 2 also shows the emissions impact as a percentage of the overall pollutant-specific inventory in the applicable area.
Ozone is formed by the interaction of directly-emitted precursor emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
As noted above, in 2004, EPA designated the Phoenix area as a nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004), and in 2012, designated the Phoenix area as a nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
As indicated in Table 2 above, based on ADEQ's estimates, the revision to the 2009 VEI program in Phoenix would increase VOC emissions by approximately 0.056 metric tons per day, which represents approximately 0.009% of the overall VOC emissions inventory in this area under existing conditions. ADEQ did not estimate NO
While minor, the incremental increase in VOC emissions due to the motorcycle exemption would occur in an area that is violating the 2008 ozone standard based on the design value for 2008-2010.
ADEQ's 2011 VEI SIP Addendum includes a measure that is intended to substitute for the foregone VOC emissions reductions from the motorcycle exemption and to thereby provide a basis to find that the 2009 VEI SIP Revision would not interfere with attainment of the 2008 ozone standard. The measure identified as the substitute is a 2008 EPA rule for aerosol coatings (spray paints and coatings) (“coatings rule”). See 73 FR 15604 (March 24, 2008) 74 FR 29595 (June 23, 2009). The compliance date for the 2008 EPA coatings rule was July 1, 2009. The designation of the Phoenix-Mesa area as a “marginal” nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS reflects ambient data from calendar years 2008-2010, and thus reflects in part the VOC emission reduction benefit from the 2008 EPA coatings rule and still the Phoenix area appears to be violating the 2008 ozone standard. Thus, with the information available at the present time, we cannot conclude that the coatings rule would offset the VOC emissions increases estimated to occur due to the motorcycle exemption. However, we find that the expansion of the boundaries of Area A, as submitted in regulatory form in ADEQ's submittal dated May 25, 2012, would more than offset the incremental increase in VOC emissions.
As noted above, the estimated benefit of “Expansion of Area A Boundaries” would be approximately 1.3 metric tons per day of VOC due to the extension of the applicability of the VEI program to areas not otherwise subject to the program.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a product of incomplete combustion of fuels. In most urban areas, most of the CO comes from motor vehicle exhaust.
In 2005, EPA redesignated the Phoenix area for CO, and approved a maintenance plan that provides for maintenance of the CO NAAQS in that area through 2015. See 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005) and 70 FR 52926 (September 6, 2005).
As indicated in Table 2 above, based on ADEQ's estimates, the motorcycle exemption would increase CO emissions by approximately 0.246 metric tons per day, which represents approximately 0.027% of the overall CO emissions inventory in this area under existing conditions. This incremental increase would be more than offset by the expansion of Area A boundaries.
Specifically, overall CO emissions are expected to decrease by only 1% between 2006 and 2015,
Therefore, based on the net reduction in CO emissions due to the VEI SIP Revision and expansion of Area A boundaries, the relatively constant level of overall CO emissions, and monitoring data that shows that ambient CO levels remain well below the CO NAAQS, we find that exempting motorcycles from emissions testing under the VEI program, together with expanding the boundaries of Area A, would not interfere with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Phoenix area.
EPA has promulgated different NAAQS for particles with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM
In 1990, the Phoenix area was designated as a “moderate” nonattainment for the PM
In 2005, EPA designated Maricopa County as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the 1997 PM
PM
Neither the MOBILE6.2 nor the MOVES2010 emissions models provide any PM
With respect to the PM
Since the CAA does not have ambient air quality standards for air toxics, the EPA's interpretation of section 110(l) is that an area's compliance with any applicable Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, as well as any Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) under sections 112 or 202(l) of the CAA constitutes an acceptable demonstration of noninterference for air toxics. Motor vehicles are not subject to MACT standards, and the VEI SIP Revision, together with the expansion of Area A boundaries, will not interfere with any Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs that apply in the area. For these reasons, the State thus concludes, and EPA concurs, that the VEI SIP Revision and expansion of Area A boundaries would not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements relative to air toxics.
Based on the evaluation presented above, we find that the exemption of motorcycles in the Phoenix area from the VEI program, coupled with the expansion of the boundaries of Area A would not interfere with reasonable further progress or attainment of any of the NAAQS, and thus, we propose to approve the 2009 VEI SIP Revision, 2011 VEI SIP Addendum, and the expansion of the boundaries of Area A [i.e., amended ARS section 49-541(1)] as consistent with the requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110(l).
In 2005, EPA redesignated the Phoenix area from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS and approved a maintenance plan. See 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005) and 70 FR 52926 (September 6, 2005). The CO maintenance plan includes contingency elements or plans that we approved as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A(d).
The contingency plan establishes an action (or trigger) level protective of the NAAQS and identifies several measures, including expansion of “Area A” (the area in which certain control measures apply), for early implementation as well as consideration of additional measures on a set schedule following the triggering event. At the time of redesignation of the Phoenix area to attainment for the CO NAAQS, the VEI programs were adopted and approved into the Arizona SIP and were assumed to continue in effect throughout the maintenance periods. Moreover, the VEI programs at the time of redesignation of these areas did not exempt motorcycles from the emissions testing requirements.
Generally, contingency plans should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State and should also identify specific indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. See EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” dated September 4, 1992. At a minimum, CAA section 175A(d) requires that the State adopt as contingency measures all control measures that had been approved in the SIP for the area prior to redesignation but that the State subsequently repeals or relaxes. In this instance, because the EPA-approved VEI emissions testing requirements applied to motorcycles at the time of redesignation for the Phoenix area, reinstatement of emissions testing for this newly-exempt vehicle category must be adopted as contingency measures for the Phoenix CO maintenance areas to comply with CAA section 175A(d).
ADEQ's 2009 VEI SIP Revision includes a new contingency measure establishing a binding commitment on ADEQ to request Legislative action to reinstate emissions testing for motorcycles in the Phoenix area should the applicable area experience a violation of the CO standards.
We view ADEQ's contingency measure in the context of the existing EPA-approved CO contingency plans for the Phoenix area, and as such, we find that the plans, as amended to include these new contingency measures, continue to meet the requirements of CAA section 175A(d), and that the new contingency measure itself is consistent with all applicable requirements.
Under section 110(k) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Arizona SIP submitted by ADEQ on November 6, 2009 and January 11, 2011 concerning the exemption of motorcycles from the Arizona VEI program in the Phoenix area, because we find that the revisions meet all
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO
Any comments must arrive by December 5, 2012.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0614, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3019,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On October 24, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved an earlier version of Rule 4354 into the SIP on June 24, 2011 (76 FR 53640). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on May 19, 2011 and CARB submitted them to us on September 27, 2011.
VOCs and NO
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), and must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). In addition, SIPs must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).
The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must fulfill RACT and the overall SIP must fulfill RACM.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT and RACM requirements consistently include the following:
We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
The TSD describes an additional rule revision that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but is not currently the basis for rule disapproval.
Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
United States Agency for International Development.
Notice to delete system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 552a), as amended, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is deleting the AID-15 Employee Payroll Records, system of records in its existing inventory.
This proposed action will be effective on December 22, 2012.
You may submit comments:
Paper Comments:
•
•
Electronic Comments:
•
•
For general questions, please contact, USAID Privacy Office, United States Agency for International Development, 2733 Crystal Drive, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA. 22202. Email:
USAID has reviewed its Privacy Act systems of records. As a result of this review, USAID is deleting the AID-15 Employee Payroll Records system of records because it is now covered under a government-wide system of records: OPM/GOV-1 General Personnel Records.
Employee Payroll Records
Based upon a review of AID-15, it has been determined that the system is already covered under OPM/GOV-1 General Personnel Records.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this document announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection for the National Farmers Market Manager Questionnaire.
Comments on this document must be received by January 4, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this information collection document. Comments can be sent to Edward Ragland, Marketing Services Division, Transportation and Marketing Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 4523 South Building, Ag Stop 0269, Washington, DC 20250-0269 or online to
Edward Ragland at the above physical address or by telephone (202) 720-8317 or by email at
Farmers markets, on-farm markets, as well as, community supported agriculture (CSAs) comprise an integral part of the urban/farm linkage and have continued to rise in popularity, mostly due to the growing consumer interest in obtaining fresh products directly from the farm. The use of these direct marketing channels has enabled farmers
A farmers market operates multiple times per year and is organized for the purpose of facilitating personal connections that create mutual benefits for local farmers, shoppers and communities. To fulfill that objective, farmers markets define the term local, regularly communicate that definition to the public, and implement rules/guidelines of operation that ensure that the farmers market consists principally of farms selling directly to the public products that the farms have produced.
An on-farm market is an area of a facility affiliated with a farm where transactions between a farm market operator and customers take place. A farm market may operate seasonally or year-round. Farm markets are an important component of direct marketing, adding value by offering customers a visit to the farm and the opportunity to purchase products from the people who grew them.
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a another type of food-production and direct marketing relationship between a farmer or farmers and a group of consumers who purchase “shares” of the season's harvest in advance of the growing season. The up-front working capital generated by selling shares reduces the financial risk to the farmer(s). Generally farmers receive better prices for their crops and, reduced marketing costs. Consumers benefit by receiving weekly delivery of fresh locally-grown fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs and other produce. They also benefit from the ability to collectively support the sustainability of local farmers.
Currently, the USDA farmers market survey is conducted every 4 years and collects information concerning farmers market characteristics. The USDA also collects data on an annual basis to update its listing in the web-based National Farmers Market Directory. There was an overlap in the information that is collected through these two efforts. The revised survey, which will be web-based and data-driven, will collect information not only about farmers markets, but also on on-farm markets and CSAs.
This information that the modified survey collects will be used to update the Directory and also to describe the characteristics of farmers markets, CSAs and on-farm markets and to identify trends in their communities.
Modifying the survey to simultaneously collect information for multiple purposes will increase response rates, reduce duplicity in information collected by respondents, and to add convenience to respondents.
Information currently collected as part of USDA annual Directory update will be incorporated as part of the revised farmers market instrument. Additional questions, related to on-farm markets and CSAs, will be added to the survey. The web-based survey will incorporate an advanced GIS mapping capability, the ability to immediately stratify the respondents and direct them to the survey modules relevant to their characteristics.
Topic areas in the survey:
vegetables.
Comments are invited on: (1) 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) 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) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the USDA, AMS.
All responses to this document will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by January 4, 2013.
Michele L. Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202)690-1078. FAX: (202) 720-8435.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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. Comments may be sent to: Michele L. Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078, FAX: (202) 720-8435.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Recovery Act”), Congress appropriated $2.5 billion of budget authority for establishing the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) which may extend loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas. In facilitating the expansion of advanced communications services and infrastructure, the program will advance the objectives of the Recovery Act to spur job creation and stimulate long-term economic growth and opportunity.
The collection of information for this program is vital to RUS to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Notice and to fulfill the requirements of the Recovery Act. In summary, the collection of information is necessary in order to implement this program.
a. This award requires the recipient to complete projects or activities which are funded under the Recovery Act and to report on use of Recovery Act funds provided through this award. Information from these reports will be made available to the public.
b. The first report is due no later than ten calendar days after the initial calendar quarter in which the recipient receives the assistance award funded in whole or in part by the Recovery Act, or by October 10, 2009. Thereafter, reports shall be submitted no later than the tenth day after the end of each calendar quarter.
c. Recipients and their first-tier recipients must maintain current registrations in the CCR (
d. The recipient shall report the information described in section 1512(c) using the reporting instructions and data elements that will be provided online at
Copies of all forms, regulations, and instructions referenced in this NOFA may be obtained from RUS. Data furnished by the applicants will be used to determine eligibility for program benefits. Furnishing the data is voluntary; however, the failure to provide data could result in program benefits being withheld or denied.
The following estimates are based on the average over the past three years the program has been in place.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 23, 2012, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) results of redetermination, pursuant to the CIT's remand order, in
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in
Irene Gorelik, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
On January 13, 2012, the CIT remanded to the Department five determinations made with respect to Red Garden in the
Pursuant to the CIT's remand instructions, the Department re-examined record evidence and made the following changes. First, as facts otherwise available, we substituted Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory (“Mingfeng”) and Shantou Longfeng Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Longfeng”) FOPs for Red Garden's sales of subject merchandise supplied by Meizhou, as it did in the original
On April 5, 2012, the Department released the draft redetermination of remand and invited interested parties to comment. The Department received no comments on the draft redetermination.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to Red Garden, the revised dumping margin is as follows:
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Catherine Bertrand or Katie Marksberry at (202) 482-3207 or (202) 482-7906, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Hardwood and decorative plywood is a panel composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) in combination with a core. The several layers, along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded together to form a finished product. A hardwood and decorative plywood panel can be composed of one or more species of hardwoods, softwoods, or bamboo, (in addition to other materials that are used for the core, as detailed below).
Hardwood and decorative plywood is generally manufactured to American National Standard for Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2009; it is differentiated from “structural plywood” (also known as “industrial plywood” or “industrial panels”), which must meet the “bond performance” requirements set forth at paragraph 5.8.6.4 of U.S. Products Standard PS 1-09 for Structural Plywood.
Hardwood and decorative plywood is primarily manufactured as a panel. The most common panel sizes are 1219 × 1829 mm (48 × 72 inches), 1219 × 2438 mm (48 × 96 inches), and 1219 × 3048 mm (48 × 120 inches). However, these panels may be cut-to-size by the manufacturer in accordance with a customer's requirements, or made to other sizes.
A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. The face veneer is the exposed veneer of a hardwood and decorative plywood product which is of a superior grade than that of the other exposed veneer of the product (i.e., as opposed to the inner veneers). The face veneer is also either side of the product when the two exposed veneers are of the same grade. The face veneer is also the side of the product that is intended to be exposed for view after installation.
The core of hardwood and decorative plywood consists of the layer or layers of material(s) that are situated between the front and back veneers. The core may be composed of a range of materials, including but not limited to veneers, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard (MDF).
All hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless whether or not the face and/or back veneers are surface coated. Additionally, the face veneer of hardwood and decorative plywood may be sanded, smoothed or given a “distressed” appearance through such methods as hand-scraping or wire brushing. The face veneer may also be stained (i.e., to achieve a particular color).
Unless subject to a specifically enumerated exclusion detailed below, all hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the definition of subject merchandise, without regard to: Dimension (overall thickness, thickness of face veneer, thickness of back veneer, thickness of core, and thickness of inner veneers; width; and length); wood species used for the face, back and inner veneers (including hardwoods, softwoods or bamboo); core composition; the grade of the face and back veneers; and whether or not surface coated (i.e., “unfinished” or “prefinished”). The face and/or back veneers of the product may be sanded, smoothed, scraped or stained.
Hardwood and decorative plywood is generally manufactured to American National Standard for Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2009. Regardless of whether the product meets the ANSI/HPVA standard, all hardwood and decorative plywood is included within this definition if it meets the physical description set forth therein.
The scope of the investigation excludes the following items: (1) Structural plywood that is manufactured and stamped to meet U.S. Products Standard PS 1-09 for Structural Plywood (including any revisions to that standard or any substantially equivalent international standard intended for structural plywood), including but not limited to the “bond performance” requirements set forth at paragraph 5.8.6.4 of that Standard and the performance criteria detailed at Table 4 through 10 of that Standard; (2) plywood platforms with a face and back ply of cork; (3) multilayered wood flooring, as described in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Investigation Nos. A-570-970 and C-570-971 (published December 8, 2011); (4) plywood further manufactured or further worked aside from sanding, surface coating (
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.10.0500; 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; and 4412.99.9000.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise as set forth herein is dispositive.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in December 2012 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3—
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after November 2012, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of November 2012,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters.
Please note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
All requests must be filed electronically in Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) on the IA ACCESS Web site at
The Department will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating five-year reviews (“Sunset Reviews”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
The Department official identified in the
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:
As a courtesy, we are making information related to Sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statue and Department's regulations, the Department schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Internet Web site at the following address: “
This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 (c).
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of First Request for Panel Review.
On October 24, 2012, GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Panel Review was requested of the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination regarding Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Results of the November 22, 2010-April 30, 2011 New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administration Review. This determination was published in the
Ellen Bohon, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) established a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico established
A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on October 24, 2012, requesting a panel review of the determination and order described above.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is November 23, 2012);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is December 10, 2012); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Monday, November 19, 2012 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Seaport Hotel, One Seaport Lane, Boston, MA 02210; telephone: (617) 385-4000; fax: (617) 385-4001.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The SSC will meet to consider control rule alternatives for Atlantic sea herring, planning and tasks for 2013 including participation in a Risk Policy Workshop planned for March 2013 and any issues related to SSC procedures. Other business may be discussed.
The public is invited to participate in the SSC meeting via webinar. For online access to the meeting, please reserve your webinar seat now at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Authorized Negotiators. A notice was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before December 5, 2012.
Submit comments identified by
•
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 501-0650 or via email to
Per FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(iv), firms offering supplies or services to the Government under negotiated solicitations must provide the names, titles, and telephone numbers of authorized negotiators to assure that discussions are held with authorized individuals. The information collected is referred to before contract negotiations and it becomes part of the official contract file.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to delete a System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting a systems of record notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on December 6, 2012 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 5, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mrs. Cindy Allard, Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155 or by telephone at (571) 372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Biographies of OSD, WHS, and JS Officials (August 23, 2004, 69 FR 51813).
Based on a recent review of DWHS P48, Biographies of OSD, WHS, and JS Officials, it has been determined that the OSD CIO no longer has any records collected under this system of records notice. Components were notified on September 24, 2012 to identify if such records were being maintained by their Component. No affirmative responses were received therefore this system can now be deleted.
DoD.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d), the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Defense Health Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). The Board has been determined to be in the public interest.
The Board is a discretionary federal advisory committee that shall provide the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (hereafter referred to as “the Under Secretary of Defense”), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to:
a. DoD healthcare policy and program management;
b. Health research programs;
c. Requirements for the treatment and prevention of disease and injury by DoD;
d. Promotion of health and the delivery of efficient, effective and high quality health care services to DoD beneficiaries; and
e. Other matters of special interest to DoD, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense or the Under Secretary.
The Board is not established to provide advice on individual DoD procurements, but instead shall be concerned with the DoD healthcare issues facing the Department of Defense in the areas referenced above. No matter shall be assigned to the Board for its consideration that would require any Board member to participate personally and substantially in the conduct of any specific procurement or place him or her in the position of acting as a contracting or procurement official.
The Board shall be composed of not more than 19 members who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense. The members shall be eminent authorities in one or more of the following disciplines: clinical health care, disease and injury prevention, health care delivery and administration, or strategic decision-making in government, industry, or academia.
Board members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis according to DoD policy and procedures. Board members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109 and serve as special government employees. Each Board member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, Board members shall serve without compensation.
The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of Board members for one-to-four year terms of service, with annual renewals; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the Board. This same term of service limitation also applies to any DoD authorized Subcommittee of the Board.
Appointments will normally be staggered among the Board membership to ensure an orderly turnover in the Board's overall composition on a periodic basis. Regular government officers or employees who participate in DoD's decision-making process for this Board are prohibited from serving on the Board or its subcommittees.
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense, shall appoint the Board's President. The Under Secretary of Defense shall appoint the Vice President. The Under Secretary of Defense, pursuant to DoD policies and procedures, may appoint, as deemed necessary, non-voting experts and consultants, with special expertise, to assist the Board on an ad hoc basis. These experts and consultants, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall serve as special government employees, shall be appointed on an intermittent basis to work specific Board-related efforts, and shall have no voting rights. Non-voting experts and consultants appointed by the Under Secretary of Defense shall not count toward the Board's total membership, and shall not engage in Board deliberations.
The Department, when necessary, and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies/procedures, may establish subcommittees, task groups, and working groups to support the Board. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Board's sponsor.
Such Subcommittees shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all of their recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the chartered Board; nor can any Subcommittee or its members update or report directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.
All Subcommittee members shall be appointed in the same manner as the Board members; that is, the Secretary of Defense shall appoint Subcommittee members even if the member in question is already a Board member.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. With the exception of travel and per diem for official Board related travel, Subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
Each Subcommittee member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
All Subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and governing DoD policies/procedures.
Currently, DoD has approved the following permanent subcommittees to the Defense Health Board.
a. Public Health Subcommittee: This Subcommittee shall be composed of not more than 10 members who are eminent authorities in at least one of the following disciplines: Infectious Disease; Occupational Health/Medicine; Preventive Medicine; Public Health; and Toxicology.
The Subcommittee, when tasked according to DoD policy/procedures, provides advice on matters pertaining to improving the overall health of members of the Armed Forces and their families through the evaluation of DoD public health programs and initiatives including education, health promotion and prevention activities, as well as disease and injury prevention research.
b. Health Care Delivery Subcommittee: This Subcommittee shall be composed of not more than nine members who are eminent authorities in at least one of the following disciplines: Health Care Academia; Health Care Finance/Economics; Health Care Policy/Executive Leadership; and Patient Care.
The Subcommittee, when tasked according to DoD policy/procedures, provides advice on matters pertaining to health care delivery, to include DoD health care policy and program management, and research.
c. Neurological/Behavioral Health Subcommittee: This Subcommittee shall be composed of not more than 10 members who are eminent authorities in at least one of the following disciplines: Neurology; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Psychiatry; Psychology; and Traumatic Brain Injury.
The Subcommittee, when tasked according to DoD policy/procedures, provides advice on matters pertaining to psychological/mental health issues and neurological symptoms or conditions among members of the Armed Forces and their families.
d. Medical Ethics Subcommittee: This Subcommittee shall be composed of not more than five members who are eminent authorities in at least one of the following disciplines: Clergy, DoD leadership, Human Research Protection, attorneys with expertise in medical ethics, and Military Health System beneficiaries. One member must have formal bioethics or medical ethics training or experience.
The Subcommittee, when tasked according to DoD policy/procedures, provides advice on matters pertaining to medical ethics.
e. Trauma and Injury Subcommittee: This Subcommittee shall be composed of not more than 10 members who are eminent authorities in at least one of the following disciplines: civilian or military trauma medicine systems.
The Subcommittee, when tasked according to DoD policy/procedures, provides advice on matters pertaining to trauma and injury, to include methods for prevention, recognition, clinical management, and treatment. It is the parent Subcommittee of the Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care.
f. Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care: The Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care is a permanent work group of the Trauma and Injury Subcommittee and shall be composed of not more than 31 members who are physicians, nurses, physician assistants, or combat medics with experience in at least one of the following: military trauma medicine or systems; or tactical combat casualty care.
The Subcommittee, when tasked according to DoD policy/procedures, provides advice on matters pertaining in-theater care in the tactical environment.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures.
In addition, the Board's DFO is required to be in attendance at all Board and Subcommittee meetings for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Board's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Board according to DoD policies/procedures, shall attend the entire duration of the Board or Subcommittee meeting. The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, shall call all of the Board's and Subcommittee's meetings; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; adjourn any meeting, when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies/procedures; and chair meetings when directed to do so by the official to whom the Board reports.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Health Board's membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of Defense Health Board.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Health Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Defense Health Board's Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Defense Health Board. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.133G-1 (Research) and 84.133G-2 (Development).
NIDRR makes two types of awards under the FI Projects program: Research grants (CFDA 84.133G-1) and development grants (CFDA 84.133G-2).
In carrying out a research activity under an FI Projects research grant, a grantee must identify one or more hypotheses or research questions and, based on the hypotheses or research questions identified, perform an intensive, systematic study directed toward producing (1) new scientific knowledge, or (2) better understanding of the subject, problem studied, or body of knowledge.
In carrying out a development activity under an FI Projects development grant, a grantee must use knowledge and understanding gained from research to create materials, devices, systems, or methods, including designing and developing prototypes and processes, that are beneficial to the target population. “Target population” means the group of individuals, organizations, or other entities expected to be affected by the project. There may be more than one target population because a project may affect those who receive services, provide services, or administer services.
This program is in concert with NIDRR's currently approved long-range plan (the Plan). The Plan is comprehensive and integrates many issues relating to disability and rehabilitation research. The Plan, which was published in the
Through the implementation of the Plan, NIDRR seeks to (1) improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training methods to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of individuals with disabilities from traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine the best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for individuals with disabilities from underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings.
Projects that support research or development activities related to the development and application of cloud computing for people with disabilities. Cloud computing offers the potential to provide accommodations that enable people with disabilities to access information technology more readily, support improved management and use of data to improve services for people with disabilities, provide new opportunities to communicate, and help people with disabilities and their families manage important data, such as application forms and records for services they receive. NIDRR seeks to secure these and other potential benefits of this emerging technology for people with disabilities.
29 U.S.C. 764.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.133G-1 or 84.133G-2.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the team listed under
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative (Part III).
The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, and Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable.
Applicants should consult NIDRR's long-range plan when preparing their applications. The Plan is organized around the following research domains and arenas: (1) Community living and participation; (2) health and function; (3) technology; (4) employment; and (5) demographics. Applicants should clearly indicate, for each application, the domain or arena under which they are applying.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)—and, after July 24, 2012, with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CRR or SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from DUN and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at SAM.gov.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the FI Projects program, CFDA Number 84.133G-1 (Research) or 84.133G-2 (Development), must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under
You may access the electronic grant application for the FI Projects program—CFDA Number 84.133G-1 (Research) or 84.133G-2 (Development)—at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Lynn Medley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5140, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700. FAX: (202) 245-7323.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.133G-1 (Research) or 84.133G-2 (Development)), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.133G-1 (Research) or 84.133G-2 (Development)), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
Different selection criteria are used for FI Projects research grants (84.133G-1) and development grants (84.133G-2). Applicants must clearly indicate in the application whether they are applying for a research grant (84.133G-1) or a development grant (84.133G-2) and must address the selection criteria relevant for their grant type. Without exception, NIDRR will review each application based on the grant designation made by the applicant. Applications will be determined ineligible and will not be reviewed if they do not include a clear designation as a research grant or a development grant.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Additional factors we consider in selecting an application for an award are as follows:
The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their applications a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria listed in the application package.
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the performance report.
4.
• The number of products (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed and/or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field.
• The average number of publications per award that are based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities and are in refereed journals.
• The percentage of new grants that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous and appropriate methods.
Each grantee must annually report on its performance through NIDRR's Annual Performance Report (APR) form. NIDRR uses APR information submitted by grantees to assess progress on these measures.
5.
Lynn Medley or Marlene Spencer as follows:
Lynn Medley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5140, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7338 or by email:
Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5133, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7532 or by email:
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)—National Data and Statistical Center for the Burn Model Systems.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.133A-6.
The purpose of DRRPs, which are funded under NIDRR's Disability and
On June 7, 2012, we also published a notice in the
For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet these priorities.
These priorities are:
The full text of these priorities is included in the pertinent notice of final priority or priorities published in the
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.133A-6.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
2.
A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).
The application package will provide instructions for completing all
3.
Lynn Medley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5140, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7338 or by email:
Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5133, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7532 or by email:
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact one of the individuals listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)—and, after July 24, 2012, with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR and SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your CCR registration annually. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at SAM.gov.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the National Data and Statistical Center for the Burn Model Systems, CFDA number 84.133A-6, must be submitted electronically using the
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under
You may access the electronic grant application for the National BMS Data Center competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (a Department-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Lynn Medley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5140 PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2700.FAX: (202) 245-7323.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
• The number of products (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices developed or tested with NIDRR funding) that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field.
• The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals.
• The percentage of new NIDRR grants that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods.
NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their Annual Performance Reports (APRs) for these reviews.
Department of Education program performance reports, which include information on NIDRR programs, are available on the Department's Web site:
5.
Lynn Medley or Marlene Spencer as follows:
Lynn Medley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5140, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7338 or by email:
Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application) filed on August 31, 2012, by Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC (GLLC), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export up to 11.5 million tons per annum (mtpa) of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG), the equivalent of approximately 547.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per year (Bcf/yr), or 1.5 Bcf per day (Bcf/d), over a 20-year period, commencing on the earlier of the date of first export or ten years from the date the requested authorization is granted. The LNG would be exported from the Gulf LNG Energy, LLC Terminal (Gulf LNG Terminal), a facility located in Pascagoula, Mississippi, to any country that has or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier and with which the United States does not prohibit trade but also does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas. GLLC is requesting this authorization both on its own behalf and as agent for other parties who themselves hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, January 4, 2013.
GLLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Birmingham, Alabama. GLLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf LNG Holdings Group, LLC (Gulf LNG Holdings). GLLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf LNG Holdings Group, LLC (Gulf LNG Holding). Kinder Morgan, Inc., indirectly through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Southern Gulf LNG Company, LLC, owns a fifty percent interest in Gulf LNG Holdings. GE Energy Financial Services, a unit of GE, directly and indirectly owns a forty-six percent interest in Gulf LNG Holdings. Other investors identified in the Application own the remaining four percent interest of Gulf LNG Holdings.
GLLC states that this application represents the second part of a two-part application request. On May 2, 2012, in Docket No. 12-47-LNG, GLLC filed with DOE/FE a separate application for long-term, multi-contract authorization to export up to 11.5 mtpa of domestically produced LNG for 25 years (equivalent to approximately 547.5 Bcf/yr, or 1.5 Bcf/d) to any country with which the United States currently has, or in the future may enter into, an FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and which has or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier. DOE/FE granted this authorization on June 15, 2012, in Order No. 3104.
On October 28, 2005, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of Gulf LNG Holdings, filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act requesting authority to site, construct and operate an LNG import terminal in Jackson County, Mississippi. Concurrently Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC filed an application under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, own and operate an approximately five mile-long pipeline from the proposed LNG terminal. FERC authorized the construction of the terminal and pipeline (collectively, the “Gulf LNG Terminal”) on February 16, 2007. The Gulf LNG Terminal commenced service on October 1, 2011.
GLLC plans to build natural gas processing and liquefaction facilities to receive and liquefy domestic natural gas at the Gulf LNG Terminal (the “Project”). The Project facilities will be integrated into the existing terminal
GLLC acknowledges that the proposed facilities would be subject to review and approval by the FERC. Upon completion of initial facility planning and design, GLLC will request that the Commission initiate the mandatory pre-filing review process for the Export Project. GLLC states it anticipates that this request will be made before the end of 2013.
In the instant Application, GLLC seeks long-term, multi-contract authorization to export up to 11.5 mtpa of domestically produced natural gas, as LNG (equivalent to approximately 547.5 Bcf/yr, or 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas), for a period of 20 years beginning on the earlier of the date of first export or ten years from the date the authorization is granted by DOE/FE. GLLC requests that such long-term authorization provide for export from the Gulf LNG Terminal to any country (i) with which the United States does not have an FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, (ii) which has developed or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier, and (iii) with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy.
GLLC requests authorization to export LNG on its own behalf and as agent for other parties who themselves hold title to the LNG at the time of export. GLLC states that to ensure that all exports are permitted and lawful under U.S. laws and policies, it will comply with all DOE requirements for an exporter or agent.
GLLC asserts that in recent orders granting long-term authorization to export LNG to FTA countries, DOE found that the applicants were not required to submit, with their applications, transaction-specific information, as specified in section 509.202(b) of DOE's regulations. GLLC requests that DOE make the same finding for this Application.
GLLC seeks authorization to export natural gas available in the integrated U.S. natural gas pipeline system. GLLC notes that due to the Gulf LNG Terminal's direct access to multiple major interstate pipelines and indirect access to the national gas pipeline grid, the Project's customers will have a wide variety of stable and economical supply options from which to choose.
GLLC states that DOE/FE's primary consideration is whether the exports will be transacted on a market-driven, competitive basis. GLLC states that this is the case here: The owners of gas or the holders of capacity at the Export Project facilities will make decisions whether to export gas based on then prevailing market conditions in the domestic market and the destination markets. GLLC states that with export capability at the Gulf LNG Terminal, both exports and imports will be subject to the ultimate market test: Those with capacity at the terminal will decide whether the market warrants imports of LNG, exports of LNG or neither. GLLC states that while its transactions will be competitive, market-based transactions consistent with DOE/FE's public interest policy, it is aware of the ongoing debate over whether LNG exports will cause price increases in the domestic market that run counter to the public interest.
In order to address such concerns, GLLC commissioned Navigant Consulting, Inc. (Navigant) to undertake a study of the potential impact to domestic supply and prices that might result from LNG exports. The Navigant Market Analysis Study, attached to the Application as Appendix A, considered the possible impacts that the Export Project might have on natural gas supply and pricing. Navigant's analysis also assumed the existence of additional LNG exports from other projects as well as an aggressive increase in natural gas demand due to the use of natural gas in transportation vehicles. GLCC states that even in the High Demand Base Case, which assumes 6.2 Bcf/d of LNG exports in addition to GLLC's requested 1.5 Bcf/d and makes aggressive assumptions about natural gas vehicle demand, the impact on domestic prices over the term of the requested authorization is minimal.
GLLC states that Navigant concludes that LNG exports will actually encourage a more reliable and stable domestic natural gas market with less volatility, which will benefit all market participants. By providing an additional outlet for supply, LNG exports will help to level the peaks and valleys historically common to the natural gas industry. GLLC states that in other words, LNG exports will reduce the price volatility that can lead producers to curtail production and reduce investment when prices are declining, which, in turn, leads to prices to subsequently spike when production falls too low. GLLC also states that its Export Project will not rely on any particular source of gas, but rather, through the nationally integrated gas pipeline grid, and will be able to access gas supplies from a variety of producing basins within the U.S.
To further support its Application, GLLC states that it also commissioned Navigant Economics to perform an Economic Impact Assessment Study. Highlighted in Appendix B of the Application, GLLC states that the study shows that the GLLC Export Project will create material economic benefits in the Southeast region where the Export Project is to be located. GLLC further states that during both the construction and operation phases, the GLLC Export Project will contribute to and stimulate the local and regional economy. GLLC maintains that because development of the GLLC Export Project will take place wholly within a brownfield development area, the environmental impacts of the project will be minimal.
Finally, GLLC states that the Application demonstrates that exports of LNG from the Gulf LNG Terminal will be in the public interest for the following reasons:
First, exports from the GLLC Export Project will involve the sale of gas in volumes and at prices responsive to market needs.
Second, GLLC states that there are more than adequate gas reserves to supply the U.S. market, even with exports from GGLC, exports from other projects in the amount of an additional 6.2 Bcf/d and with aggressive growth in demand for natural gas vehicles.
Third, GLLC states that natural gas to be exported from the GLLC Export Project may be sourced from a variety of conventional and unconventional
Fourth, GLLC states that the impact of LNG exports on the price of domestic gas will be minimal, and will be expected to average less than 8 percent.
Fifth, GLLC states that the Export Project will create economic benefits to the local and regional economies in the Southeast region surrounding the project location in Jackson County, Mississippi, as well as the national economy.
Sixth, GLLC contends that LNG exports will lead to less volatility in domestic natural gas markets and increased stability that benefits producers and consumers by levelizing demand.
Seventh, GLLC states that LNG exports will benefit the United States by contributing toward a decreased trade deficit and advancing U.S. interests abroad.
Eighth, GLLC maintains that the Export Project will have relatively small environmental impacts because the construction will take place wholly within a brownfield development area and displace environmentally damaging fuels in those countries.
Further details can be found in the Application, which has been posted at
GLLC states that the Export Project will have minimal environmental impacts. GLLC states that although the export facilities will be constructed on property adjacent to the existing import facilities, the project will be located wholly in a brownfield development area. GLLC anticipates that, given this project scope, the FERC will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement as part of its environmental review. The FERC conducted an environmental review of the Gulf LNG Terminal site in connection with authorization of the siting, construction, and operation of the Terminal in Docket No. CP06-12-000. GLLC also states that any additional environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Export Project will be reviewed by the FERC and the applicable state and federal permitting agencies (e.g., United States Army Corps of Engineers, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and Coast Guard, among others) as part of the permitting process for the Export Project. Consistent with its practice regarding other applications, DOE/FE will be a cooperating agency in the FERC's environmental review.
GLLC states that it currently is in the process of evaluating the necessary infrastructure modifications and additions necessary to accommodate both FTA and non-FTA exports. GLLC states that, following such evaluation, it will initiate the pre-filing review process at the FERC for the proposed Export Project facilities. GLLC requests that DOE/FE issue an order approving the Application, with such approval subject to a satisfactory environmental review by the FERC.
The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the NGA, as amended, and the authority contained in DOE Delegation Order No. 00-002.00L (April 29, 2011) and DOE Redelegation Order No. 00-002.04E (April 29, 2011). In reviewing this LNG export Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant or appropriate, these issues will include the impact of LNG exports associated with this Application, and the cumulative impact of any other application(s) previously approved, on domestic need for the gas proposed for export, adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and any other issues, including the impact on the U.S. economy (GDP), consumers, and industry, job creation, U.S. balance of trade, international considerations, and whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this Application should comment in their responses on these issues, as well as any other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
NEPA requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.
Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicants, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, or motions for additional procedures.
In response to this notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. A party seeking intervention may request that additional procedures be provided, such as additional written comments, an oral presentation, a conference, or trial-type hearing. Any request to file additional written comments should explain why they are necessary. Any request for an oral presentation should identify the substantial question of fact, law, or policy at issue, show that it is material and relevant to a decision in the proceeding, and demonstrate why an oral presentation is needed. Any request for a conference should demonstrate why the conference would materially advance the proceeding. Any request for a trial-type hearing must show that there are factual issues genuinely in dispute that are relevant and material to a decision and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
The Application filed by GLLC is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
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 land acquisition reports:
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 corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility 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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that on October 24, 2012, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), 825(e), 825(h) (2006), and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 206 (2012), ITC Midwest, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against American Transmission Company (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent has not complied with the express terms and conditions of (a) the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.'s (MISO) Open Access Transmission Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff; (b) the Agreement of the Transmission Facilities Owners to Organize the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., a Delaware Non-Stock Corporation; and (c) the MISO designations for MVP Project 5 (with the designation 3127), the Dubuque-Cardinal Line as specified in the 2011 MISO Transmission Expansion Plan Appendix A.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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 and 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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
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 25, 2012, Gaddi H. Vasquez submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b) (2008), Part 45 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 18 CFR Part 45(c)(2012).
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
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of charter renewal.
The charter for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Act Advisory committee (CAAAC) will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The purpose of CAAAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on policy issues associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act.
It is determined that CAAAC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law.
Inquiries may be directed to Pat Childers, CAAAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA, Mail Code 6102A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460, or by email,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs (“Agreement”) pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, with the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Corporation (“Settling Party”). The Settling Party is a potentially
Comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2012.
The Agreement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Comments should reference the Digital Equipment Corp. Superfund Site, located in San German, Puerto Rico Index No. CERCLA-02-2012-2021. To request a copy of the Agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified below.
Beverly Kolenberg, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Telephone: 212-637-3167, email at
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, November 8, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer,Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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 20, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 30, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 30, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension of a previously existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Value Engineering Requirements. A notice was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before December 5, 2012.
Submit comments identified by
•
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA, (202) 501-1448 or email at
Per Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 48, value engineering is the technique by which contractors (1) voluntarily suggest methods for performing more economically and share in any resulting savings or (2) are required to establish a program to identify and submit to the Government methods for performing more economically. These recommendations are submitted to the Government as value engineering change proposals (VECP's) and they must include specific information. This information is needed to enable the Government to evaluate the VECP and, if accepted, to arrange for an equitable sharing plan.
Based on adjustments to the number of respondents using Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Procurement Data System Data, the number of responses and the estimated hours, the annual estimated reporting burden increased from the noticed published in the
Office of Civil Rights, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a previously approved information collection requirement regarding nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs. This information is needed to facilitate nondiscrimination in GSA's Federal Financial Assistance Programs, consistent with Federal civil rights laws and regulations that apply to recipients of Federal financial assistance. A notice was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: December 5, 2012.
Evelyn Britton, Director, External Programs Division, Office of Civil Rights, at telephone (202) 603-1645 or via email to
Submit comments identified by
•
•
•
The General Services Administration (GSA) has mission responsibilities related to monitoring and enforcing compliance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations that apply to Federal Financial Assistance programs administered by GSA. Specifically, those laws provide that no person on the ground of race, color, national origin, disability, sex or age shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program in connection with which Federal financial assistance is extended under laws administered in whole or in part by GSA. These mission responsibilities generate the requirement to request and obtain certain data from recipients of Federal surplus property for the purpose of determining compliance, such as the number of individuals, based on race and ethnic origin, of the recipient's eligible and actual serviced population; race and national origin of those denied participation in the recipient's program(s); non-English languages encountered by the recipient's program(s) and how the recipient is addressing meaningful access for individuals that are Limited English Proficient; whether there has been complaints or lawsuits filed against the recipient based on prohibited discrimination and whether there has
Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVPR), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0228, Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for comments regarding the extension of a previously existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Notice of Radioactive Materials. A notice was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before December 5, 2012.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0107, Notice of Radioactive Materials, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ms. Marissa Petrusek, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 501-0136 or email
The clause at FAR 52.223-7, Notice of Radioactive Materials, requires contractors to notify the Government prior to delivery of items containing radioactive materials. The purpose of the notification is to alert receiving activities that appropriate safeguards may need to be instituted. The notice shall specify the part or parts of the items which contain radioactive materials, a description of the materials, the name and activity of the isotope, the manufacturer of the materials, and any other information known to the contractor which will put users of the items on notice as to the hazards involved.
Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA.
Notice of request for an extension of a information collection requirement for an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the packing list clause.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: January 4, 2013.
Submit comments identified by
•
•
•
Deborah Eble, Procurement Analyst, GSA Policy Integrity Workforce, by telephone (215) 446-5823 or via email at
GSAR clause 552.211-77, Packing List, requires a contractor to include a packing list that verifies placement of an order and identifies the items shipped. In addition to information contractors would normally include on packing lists, the identification of cardholder name, telephone number and the term “Credit Card” is required.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Kimberly S. Lane, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
National Program of Cancer Registries Program Evaluation Instrument (NPCR-PEI) (OMB No. 0920-0706, exp. 12/31/2011)—Reinstatement—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was established to provide funding for states and territories to: (1) Improve existing state-based cancer registries; (2) plan and implement registries where none existed; (3) develop model legislation and regulations for states to enhance the viability of registry operations; (4) set standards for data completeness, timeliness, and quality; (5) provide training for registry personnel; and (6) help establish a computerized reporting and data-processing system. Through the NPCR, CDC currently supports 48 population-based central cancer registries (CCR) in 45 states, one territory, the District of Columbia, and the Pacific Islands. The National Cancer Institute supports the operations of CCR in the five remaining states.
Through the NPCR, CDC provides technical assistance and funding and sets program standards to assure that complete cancer incidence data are available for national and state cancer control and prevention activities and other health planning activities. NPCR-funded CCR are the primary source of cancer surveillance data for
Over a 17-year period, CDC has collected information from NPCR grantees to monitor their performance in meeting the required Program Standards (NPCR Program Evaluation Instrument, OMB No. 0920-0706, exp. 12/31/2011). The NPCR Program Evaluation Instrument (PEI) is a secure, web-based method of collecting information about registry operations, including: Staffing, legislation, administration, reporting completeness, data exchange, data content and format, data quality assurance, data use, collaborative relationships, advanced activities, and survey feedback. Examples of information that can be obtained from various questions include, but are not limited to: (1) The number of filled full-time staff positions by position responsibility, (2) data quality control activities, (3) data collection activities as they relate to achieving NPCR standards for data completeness, (4) electronic reporting, (5) linkage with other databases and (6) whether registry data are used for comprehensive cancer control program planning and evaluation.
The most recent PEI reports were submitted to CDC in 2011. Since 2009, data collection had been conducted on a biennial schedule in odd-numbered years. In late 2011, CDC discontinued the NPCR PEI clearance in preparation for a review of program standards. At this time, CDC seeks OMB approval to reinstate the NPCR PEI clearance. Minor changes to the PEI will be implemented
Information will continue to be collected electronically in odd-numbered years. OMB approval is requested for three years to support data collection in 2013 and 2015. The total number of NPCR grantees is 48. For two cycles of data collection over a three-year period, the annualized number of grantees is 32 (48+48/3=32). The estimated burden per response is 2 hours.
The NPCR-PEI data collection is needed to receive, process, evaluate, aggregate, and disseminate NPCR program information. CDC and the NPCR-funded registries will use the data to monitor progress toward meeting objectives and established program standards; to describe various attributes of the NPCR-funded registries; and to respond to inquiries about the program.
There are no costs to respondents except their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are summarized in the table below.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Information Collection on foreign-born, migrant, refugee and other mobile populations with current or future ties to the United States—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), requests approval of a new “generic clearance” to better understand the health status, risk factors for disease and other health outcomes among foreign-born, migrant, refugee and other mobile populations with current or future ties to the United States. Insights gained from information collections will assist in the planning, implementation and improvement of disease prevention and control activities.
The information collection for which approval is sought is in accordance with DGMQ's mission to reduce morbidity and mortality among immigrants, refugees, travelers, expatriates, and other globally mobile populations, and to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. This mission is supported by delegated legal authorities.
Section 361 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42
The Secretary of Health and Human Services also has the legal authority to establish regulations outlining the requirements for the medical examination of aliens before they may be admitted into the United States. This authority is provided under Section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)) and Section 325 of the Public Health Service Act. These regulations are codified in 42 CFR Part 34, which establish requirements that determine whether aliens can be admitted into the United States.
Successful implementation of DGMQ's regulatory authority and public health mission requires a variety of information collections with foreign-born, migrant and other mobile populations with current or future ties to the United States. These include but are not limited to: immigrants, international travelers, asylees and refugees, expatriates, border region residents, temporary migrants, and permanent alien residents.
The purpose of the new “generic clearance” is to better understand the health status, risk factors for disease and other health outcomes among foreign-born, migrant, refugee and other mobile populations with current or future ties to the United States. Numerous types of information will be collected under the auspices of this generic OMB clearance. These include, but are not limited to, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions, practices, behaviors, skills, self-efficacy, and health information needs and sources.
The proposed generic clearance is needed for DGMQ to fulfill its regulatory authority and public health mission, and will allow DGMQ to quickly collect important health-related information from the aforementioned hard-to-reach populations in order to improve routine and emergency public health programs and activities. Prior to each proposed information collection,
DGMQ staff proposes that data collection methods for this package will include but are not limited to: Interviews, focus groups, group discussions, and surveys. Depending on the specific purpose, data collection methods may be conducted either in-person, by telephone, on paper, or online. Data may be collected in quantitative and/or qualitative forms. Each proposed information collection will submit the tools used for data collection, including screenshots of web-based surveys, in the statement provided to OMB.
DGMQ estimates that 18,720 respondents will be screened in order for 9485 respondents to be involved in information collection activities each year. We anticipate that the information collections undertaken within this generic will use some combination of 15 surveys, 35 focus groups, and 125 interviews, with some information collections making use of more than one method per collection. It is estimated that information collection activities will total 10,598 burden hours per year.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meetingof the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announce the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email
The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
In 2006, the MCHB Genetic Services Branch (GSB) awarded funding to a National Coordinating Center (NCC). The NCC was established to: (1) Collect, coordinate, monitor, and report on best practices and findings regarding the activities of the demonstration program; (2) identify a model protocol for eligible entities with respect to the prevention and treatment of Sickle Cell Disease; (3) identify educational materials regarding the prevention and treatment of Sickle Cell Disease; and, (4) prepare a final report on the efficacy of the demonstration program based on evaluation and quality improvement (QI) findings.
To achieve the goals/objectives of the NCC, the National Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) and partners are facilitating the Hemoglobinopathy Learning Collaborative (HLC). The HLC includes grantee teams funded from the SCDTDP and the Sickle Cell Disease for Newborn Screening Program (SCDNBSP). The HLC uses a process known as the Model for Improvement, which is a widely used approach to QI in health care settings. The Model for Improvement utilizes a structured process that asks grantee teams, who hereafter will be referred to as improvement teams, to build on small tests of change in their health care setting, while providing monthly reporting on measurements. The proposed QI Data Collection and reporting system is an integral component of this model.
The QI Data Collection strategy will provide an effective and efficient mechanism to do the following: (1) Assess the services provided by grantees under the SCDTDP and monitor and drive improvement on quality measures; (2) collect, coordinate, and distribute data, best practices, and findings from network sites; (3) refine a common model protocol regarding the prevention and treatment of sickle cell disease; (4) examine/address barriers that individuals and families living with sickle cell disease face when accessing quality health care and health education; (5) evaluate the grantees' performance in meeting the objectives of the SCDTDP; and, (6) provide HRSA/Congress information on the overall progress of the program.
The proposed data collection and entry forms are as follows: (1) Participant Profile Form, (2) Acute Care Visit Form, and (3) Ambulatory Care Visit Form.
All information will be collected via medical chart review. Data will be entered directly into a secure web-based data collection tool, Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). The data entered into REDCap will be analyzed via a custom measurement generator that will calculate and export the QI
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Request for public comment on methodology for designation of frontier and remote areas.
This notice announces a request for public comment on a methodology derived from the Frontier and Remote (FAR) system for designating U.S. frontier areas. This methodology was developed in a collaborative project between the Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP) in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and the Economic Research Service (ERS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). While other agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the ERS may in the future choose to use the FAR methodology to demarcate the frontier areas of the U.S., there is no requirement that they do so, and they may choose other, alternate methodologies and definitions that best suit their program requirements.
The public is encouraged to submit written comments on the proposed FAR methodology no later than January 4, 2013. All public comments received will be available for public inspection at HRSA's ORHP on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Comments may be submitted via email to
Questions about this request for public comment can be directed to Steven Hirsch using the contact information listed above.
ORHP was authorized by Congress in December of 1987 by Section 711 of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 912], and charged with informing and advising HHS on matters affecting rural hospitals and health care and coordinating activities within the Department that relate to rural health care.
ORHP currently considers all census tracts with RUCA codes 4 through 10 to be rural. While use of the RUCA codes has allowed identification of rural census tracts in metropolitan counties, among the more than 60,000 tracts in the U.S., there are some that are extremely large and where use of RUCA codes alone fails to account for distance to services and sparse population. In response to these concerns, ORHP has designated 132 large area census tracts with RUCA codes 2 or 3 as rural. These tracts are at least 400 square miles in area with a population density of no more than 35 people per square mile. There is also a ZIP code-based version of the RUCA codes that is often used for policy analysis, research, and other purposes (see:
In performing analysis for this project, HRSA intended to create a definition of “frontier” based on easily explained concepts of remoteness and population sparseness. HRSA's goal was to create a statistical delineation that will be useful in a wide variety of research and policy contexts and adjustable to the circumstances in which it is applied. We believe that the new geographic taxonomy should prove useful in various research and policy environments, such as rural health care, regional science, demography, rural sociology, and agricultural economics. Two features distinguish the methodology described here from earlier classifications. First, the approach strives for the most accurate measures of distance possible for the smallest units of geography containing population data. Travel time by car to nearby urban areas is calculated for coterminous U.S. territory at the 1x1 kilometer grid level (11.9 million grid cells). Once frontier territory is delimited at the grid level, frontier populations may be aggregated to ZIP code areas, as demonstrated here, or to census tracts, counties, or other useful geographic units. Second, travel time thresholds around urban areas were allowed to vary by urban-area population size. This is desirable because the effect of urban population size on adjacent rural population density is not uniform across all urban sizes. In general, the higher the population of an urbanized area, the greater the population density of any given area nearby.
However, any statistical delineation of this nature is approximate at best, and not suited to all applications. Given the remarkable diversity of settlement patterns and conditions across the contemporary U.S., no definition can account for every variation; and there will be areas included or excluded that would seem to many to be erroneously classified. Therefore, it is necessary to build some degree of flexibility into any definition that will allow users to choose the sub-definition that best suits their purpose. The FAR codes described here allow a range of choices rather than a dichotomy. It will be up to researchers, policymakers, program managers, and policy advocates to ensure that the codes are applied appropriately within specific contexts.
This project seeks to delineate U.S. territory characterized by very low population density and a high degree of remoteness. Such territory lies at one end of the rural-urban continuum and can be generally viewed as a subset of rural. Job creation, population retention, provision of services such as health care, and access to food, clothing, and other consumer items may require increased efforts in very rural, remote communities. Recent research indicates that the demographic and economic penalties associated with small size and remoteness may be increasing (Partridge, 2008).
Perhaps the fundamental and defining challenges facing frontier communities are the increased per capita costs of providing services. Access to health care is a primary concern motivating this research, but distance and low population densities increase costs of providing all types of social and public services, including schools, police and fire protection, public utilities, and transportation.
For purposes of this project, “frontier/remote” is generally considered a subset of “rural.” Of course, there are many definitions of “rural” and as much disagreement about them as there is about frontier. Many of the rural taxonomies have multiple categories, some of which can be used and evaluated for their utility in designating frontier/remote areas. Only by defining “rural” appropriately can policymakers better understand the implications of certain policy options. The definition of rurality used for one purpose may be inappropriate or inadequate for another (Larson and Hart, 2003).
Most of the rural definitions are based on counties (or their equivalents) as the geographic unit. The most important reasons for using counties include that they: (1) Have much available data; (2) are significant political entities; (3) seldom change boundaries; (4) are traditionally used in many reporting systems and data sets; and (5) are well known to the general public, program managers, researchers, and politicians. However, there are significant problems with county use for many purposes. Counties were created by means of political processes and often are extremely heterogeneous units where aggregate averages of data items end up being unrepresentative of particular places within the county. The rural/urban character within many counties varies dramatically. For instance, Pima County, Arizona, ranges from an urban city of over half a million population near its northeast corner to large remote areas that are extremely sparsely populated along its southwest Mexico/U.S. border. Some large states like Arizona (114,006 square miles—significantly larger than the United Kingdom) have few counties (17 counties), while smaller states like Virginia (42,769 square miles) have many smaller counties (134 counties). Counties vary in size from state to state, with the counties in the west generally much larger than those of the east.
Some definitions go beyond a simple division of counties into rural/urban or metro/nonmetro categories. For instance, the ERS' county-based Urban Influence Codes (UICs) consist of a dozen codes and uses the Office of Management and Budget's definition of metropolitan to divide the nation's urban-like and rural-like counties into two groups. The taxonomy divides the nonmetro counties into 10 categories. The most frontier-like of these categories (i.e., category number 12) could be considered as possible frontier/remote areas, but because it uses a county level analysis, the use of UIC still mischaracterizes some areas within counties that have a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of their degree of being frontier/rural.
“The choice of definition for ‘rural' that is used to present demographic and health data can make a substantive difference. For example, whether a disproportionate number of rural residents are elderly depends on how rural is defined. Furthermore, wide variations in health status indicators within non-metro areas will not be apparent unless non-metro data are disaggregated by region, urbanization, proximity to urban areas, or other relevant factors,” (Hewitt, 1989).
Depending on which categorization is chosen, estimates of the rural population of the U.S. can vary widely. Such differences make reported information vastly different depending
There are some taxonomies that are based on sub-county units. The oldest and most used such geographic taxonomy is that of the U.S. Census Bureau. This utilizes census tract and block group data to define Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters (described below). The other taxonomy that has gained significant use, especially related to health care, is the RUCAs, which were described above.
There are many different types of “rural” and “frontier” definitions. Many of these definitions were developed in response to specific needs, but this is not always considered when they are applied to other tasks and different purposes. Deciding which “rural” definition to apply to a research or policy analysis topic depends on the purpose at hand, the availability of data, and the appropriate and available taxonomy. All currently available definitions of “rural” have their limitations, however the approach described in this notice is intended to provide an empiric approach to the definition of “frontier” and “remote.” Although it is unlikely that all researchers, analysts, and advocates will ever agree that a single definition of “rural” is appropriate in all circumstances, we believe that the approach below may provide interested parties with an additional instrument to gauge the relative rurality of an area.
The “frontier” definition discussed here is a geographical concept meant to delineate areas characterized primarily by remoteness. Applying this particular meaning to the term has increased in recent years, especially in the rural health policy arena, and represents a natural evolution of the term with parallels in other disciplines (as described below). Though a more neutral label, such as “remote areas” could easily be substituted, there are benefits to use of the term “frontier” for several reasons, one being the use of a shorter, more intuitively appealing descriptive label in research publications and other outlets.
For geographers and others, the term “frontier” came to mean not just the line dividing more densely settled and less densely settled territory, but all of the less densely settled territory beyond the line. For example, after the 1980 Census, Frank Popper published a series of academic and news articles in which he applied the term frontier to all sparsely settled territory, as many others were doing, and his research showed that more than half the land area of the U.S. was still frontier. He also claimed that the number of frontier communities was growing because of persistent population loss throughout the nation's heartland (Popper, F.J., 1986). Social scientists and others are increasingly using the term “frontier” to describe sparsely settled and geographically remote territory, especially in the U.S. (Duncan, 1993; McGranahan and Beale, 2002). On the federal and state health care front, frontier came to have a general meaning similar to that advocated by Popper (i.e., sparsely settled) with remoteness often emphasized. “In the mid-1980s, the federal Community Health Center program decided to consider as frontier those counties with a population less than or equal to six persons per square mile located at considerable distance (greater than 60 minutes travel time) to a medical facility able to perform a caesarian section delivery or handle a patient having a cardiac arrest. These latter criteria were forgotten through the years, and programs began to define frontier counties with only a single criteria—population density of six persons per square mile or less,” (Definition of Frontier section of following web page accessed 4/21/2011:
It is clear from an overview of the literature that a fairly small group of factors have a tendency to be included in most of the rural and frontier taxonomies. The Census Bureau used population density (areas of less than two people per square mile) exclusively in its 19th century definition. In contemporary applications, geographic remoteness has been equally emphasized. For instance, McGranahan and Beale (2002) identified a set of frontier counties based on two measures applied to nonmetro counties: Population density (less than 10.1 persons per square mile) and non-adjacency to a metro area as a proxy for remoteness. Many other measures attempt to capture these overlapping but distinct concepts of sparseness and remoteness: population size, distance to urban areas (measured in linear miles, travel miles, or travel time), and degree of urbanization.
Many of the listed factors have a face validity that is quite obvious. For instance, society's perception of rural areas is that they are those places where the population settlement pattern demonstrates low density (i.e., sparsely settled areas).
The ORHP/ERS-funded frontier taxonomy project to develop a needed national definition of “frontier” and “remote” was started in 2008, and included the following components:
(1) Creation of a comprehensive review and inventory of rural and frontier definitions;
(2) Establishment and use of a Technical Advisory Group (five academic experts), conference calls, and other communication and feedback;
(3) Formation and use of a Stakeholder Advisory Group (seven relevant stakeholders), conference calls, and other communications and feedback;
(4) Planning and implementing five regional stakeholder meetings in Washington (District of Columbia), Albuquerque (New Mexico), Omaha (Nebraska), and two in Seattle (Washington)—one of which was more specifically about islands. Meetings were limited to approximately 30 stakeholders. In addition, many other presentations with time for feedback were made (e.g., presentations to the Frontier Partners Group);
(5) Analytical testing of the alternate approaches and results;
(6) Solicitation of feedback regarding approaches and results;
(7) Selection of final methodological approach; and
(8) Analyses using final methodology on 2000 data.
All the components have been completed.
To assist in providing policy-relevant information about conditions in remote areas to policymakers, public officials, researchers, and the general public, ORHP has helped fund the development of a set of ZIP code-level frontier codes by ERS.
The term “frontier” is used here to describe territory characterized by some combination of low population size and high geographic remoteness. This pilot FAR version, based on 2000 Census data, provides four separate frontier definitions (Levels), ranging from one that is relatively inclusive (18.0 million people classified as living in frontier areas) to a relatively restrictive version
Calculation of travel times from urban areas was performed for 1x1 kilometer grid cells that also included an estimated 2000 Census population. The use of these small, 1 square kilometer cells, allows more accuracy of measurement than use of larger units, such as census tracts or county boundaries. Once the frontier status for all grid cells was determined, the grid-cell population was aggregated to ZIP code areas. For each of the four frontier Levels, the percentage of a ZIP code area's population classified as frontier was determined. If the majority of the ZIP code areas' population was classified as frontier, that ZIP code area was considered to be a frontier area.
Use of the FAR Methodology and associated data can be used to generate alternative “frontier” definitions that might better fit potential user purposes. The FAR codes can also be used in conjunction with other data, such as socioeconomic characteristics of populations, to allow further research analysis or better policy use.
A synopsis of the methods for the new FAR definition is as follows:
(1) The developmental analyses were based on the 2000 Bureau of the Census data;
(2) the conterminous U.S. was divided into 11.9 million 1x1 kilometer squares for analysis;
(3) settlement population aggregations were based on the Census Bureau's designated Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters based on the 2000 Census data;
(4) travel times were calculated to the nearest edges of Urbanized Areas of 2500 or greater population (travel times were estimated using speed limits and the fastest routes were determined and employed in the analyses);
(5) travel times were calculated to the nearest Urbanized Areas regarding each of the following categories: 50,000 or greater population, 25,000-49,999 population, 10,000-24,999 population, and 2,500-9,999 population;
(6) for each of the 11.9 million grid cells, the information in #4 and #5 above were used to determine frontier status for each of the four levels (described below);
(7) the grid-cell populations (now classified as frontier or non-frontier) were then aggregated to ZIP code areas (ZIP code areas used here come from an ESRI map boundary file reflecting the U.S. Postal Service December 2010 inventory); and
(8) ZIP code areas were assigned as being FAR or not based on whether 50 percent or more of the populations in their cells were designated as FAR (this was performed for each of the four Level criteria—described below).
Not only can the cell data be aggregated and calculated for ZIP code areas, but also the same is being done for census tracts and could be done for other types of geographic units. Note that aggregating the information to larger geographic units (such as counties and states) creates many more units that combine both frontier and non-frontier populations.
The four FAR Levels are defined as follows (travel times are calculated one-way by the fastest paved road route):
(1) Frontier Level 1 areas are 60 minutes or greater from Census Bureau-defined Urban Areas of 50,000 or more population;
(2) Frontier Level 2 areas are 60 minutes or greater from Urban Areas of 50,000 or more people
(3) Frontier Level 3 areas are 60 minutes or greater from Urban Areas of 50,000 or more people; 45 minutes or greater from Urban Areas of 25,000-49,999;
(4) Frontier Level 4 areas are 60 minutes or greater from Urban Areas of 50,000 or more people; 45 minutes or greater from Urban Areas of 25,000-49,999; 30 minutes or greater from Urban Areas of 10,000-24,999;
FAR Level 1 includes a larger proportion of the population and land area of the U.S than Level 2, which includes more area and population than Level 3, etc. Thus, a ZIP code area that is designated as FAR per the Level 2 definition would need to be located an hour or more travel time from the nearest edge of the closest Urbanized Area (50,000 or more population), and also be located 45 minutes travel time from the nearest edge of an Urban Area of 25,000-49,999 population. For instance, if a ZIP code area was 70 minutes from an Urban Area of 105,000 population and 55 minutes from an Urban Area of 37,000, it would qualify as FAR, but if it was 70 minutes from an Urbanized Area of the same population and 29 minutes from an Urban Area of the same size it would not be designated as FAR. Because the base cell information used for the conterminous states was not available for Alaska and Hawaii, the designation process has to be modified and performed in a more tailored and analyst-intensive fashion. A trial of this method indicates that the final designations for these two states will be for all intents and purposes parallel with those of the other 48 states. The final version of the designations for Alaska and Hawaii will be performed when the 48 states are redone with the Census designation of Urban Areas with 2010 data.
Not all cells and populations are connected to larger places by roads. In many cases, other means of transportation must be utilized (e.g., airplanes, trains, ferries, ships, and boats). This is not only true for the many islands of Hawaii and Alaska, but for many of the other states (e.g., Washington's San Juan Islands in the Puget Sound and Massachusetts' Nantucket Island). There are also towns such as Alaska's Bethel that are not connected to larger towns/cities by roads (i.e., in this case only by air). In these cases (e.g., where air flights are necessary), one hour is added to the road travel time for the area, which is more than enough for an area to be designated as FAR if it can qualify by specific definition level criteria (e.g., to qualify for Level 3, the town would need to have fewer than 10,000 population). For example, Kauai's largest city is Kappa with a 2010 population of 10,699. The entire island clearly qualifies as frontier per FAR Level 1 and Level 2 definitions. Large portions of the island (but not all of it) also qualify per the FAR Level 3 (i.e., a portion of Kauai's population reside greater than 30 minutes travel from a city of over 10,000) and Level 4 definitions. Bethel, Alaska, which is not connected to other cities and towns via road with a 2010 population of 17,013, also qualifies as frontier per the FAR Level 1 and Level 2 definitions but not by the FAR Level 3 and Level 4 definitions (i.e., the city has greater than 10,000 population), though surrounding areas would qualify because of the severe travel barriers (i.e., no roads into town).
Given that different geographical units (e.g., residential ZIP code areas,
Web location #1 (Economic Research Service):
(1) General description of the FAR taxonomy; and
(2) Downloadable files by state and for the whole nation for residential ZIP code areas, and census tracks will be available (the files will include: Identification code; population count; Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 designation status, frontier or not based on majority of population); percentage of population that meet and do not meet frontier criteria for each of the levels; land area designated as frontier/remote by each of the Levels, land area not designated as frontier/remote by each of the Levels, and state where the majority of the population resides; and
(3) Maps.
Web location #2 (Center for Rural Health, University of North Dakota):
(1) Current version of the rural, frontier, and island definition literature review (this review will continue to be updated as new material is obtained and as new definitions are created);
(2) Detailed description of the developmental project (e.g., summary of regional stakeholder meetings and composition of advisory groups);
(3) Description of the purposes and principles upon which the taxonomy was developed;
(4) Detailed description of the analytical methods; and
(5) Sensitivity analyses, comparisons with other designation methods, maps and the like.
The aggregate results are summarized below in Table 1.
The state-level results are available at the FAR section of the ERS Web site (see:
HRSA is now seeking public comments on:
(1) The use of a population threshold of 50,000 as the central place from which to measure in defining FAR areas;
(2) The use of 60 minutes travel time from the central place;
(3) Whether the 50 percent population threshold for assigning frontier status to a ZIP code/census tract is the appropriate level for the four standard provided levels;
(4) Other ways of representing urban and rural areas;
(5) Alternatives to using grid cells for measuring remoteness;
(6) Applicability of the FAR methodology to island populations; and
(7) Need for a Census tract and county version of the FAR.
Comments on other aspects of the methodology are welcomed. Commenters are reminded that this is only a proposed methodology, and it is not currently tied to any current federal program or allocation of resources. It is only a tool to better delineate those isolated and remote areas in the country to help researchers and policy makers better understand the unique circumstances of this geographic subset.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The National Advisory Council will meet by teleconference on Monday, November 19, 2012. The meeting will be open to the public.
The National Advisory Council will meet Monday, November 19, 2012, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST. Please note that the teleconference may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held by teleconference. Members of the public who wish to obtain the listen-only call-in number, access code, and other information for the public teleconference, please contact the Office of the National Advisory Council.
For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance on the call, contact the Office of the National Advisory Council as soon as possible. See contact information under
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to comment on the issues to be considered by the committee which are available on the FEMA Web site at
•
•
Alexandra Woodruff, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Office of the National Advisory Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Room 825), 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, telephone (202) 212-4349, fax (540) 504-2331, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The National Advisory Council (NAC) advises the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on all aspects of emergency management. The NAC incorporates State, local, and Tribal governments, and private sector partners' input in the development and revision of FEMA policies and strategies. FEMA's Office of the NAC serves as the focal point for all NAC coordination.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that notices of meetings of advisory committees be announced in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before December 5, 2012. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import three jaguars (
The applicant requests a permit to export biological samples of black rhinos (
The applicant requests a renewal of their permit to export salvaged hair samples collected from wolves (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to take up to 30 southern sea otters (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office,
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey; Arizona.
The plats of survey of the described lands were officially filed in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona, on dates indicated.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 28, a metes-and-bounds survey in section 28, and the survey of a portion of the Meanders of the Present Left Bank of the Colorado River in section 28, Township 16 South, Range 22 East, accepted October 18, 2012, and officially filed October 22, 2012, for Group 1113, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management. A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) will meet as indicated below:
The SMAC will tentatively hold public meetings November 29-30, 2012 in Bend, Oregon; February 21-22, 2013 in Burns, Oregon; May 9-10, 2013 in Diamond, Oregon; August 15-16, 2013 in Frenchglen, Oregon; and November 14-15, 2013 in Burns, Oregon. Public comment periods will be scheduled each day of each meeting. Logistical details and a complete agenda for each session will be available 2-4 weeks prior to the session. Meeting dates, times, locations, and the duration scheduled for public comment periods may be extended or altered when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate necessary business and all who seek to be heard regarding matters before the SMAC.
Tara Martinak, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738-9424, (541) 573-4519, or email
The SMAC was initiated August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act (CMPA) of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-399).
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rio Grande Natural Area Commission will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on December 5, 2012.
Hampton Inn Alamosa, 710 Mariposa Street, Alamosa, CO 81101.
Denise Adamic, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Front Range District Office, 3028 East Main St., Cañon City, CO 81212. Phone: (719) 269-8553. Email:
The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission was established in the Rio Grande Natural Area Act (16 U.S.C. 460rrr-2). The nine-member Commission advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, concerning the preparation and implementation of a management plan for non-Federal land in the Rio Grande Natural Area, as directed by law. Planned agenda topics for this meeting include: Resource concerns and goals to be addressed in the management plan, subcommittee reports on the draft plan and the process for public involvement. The public may offer oral comments at 10:15 a.m. or written statements, which may be submitted for the Commission's consideration. Please send written comments to Denise Adamic at the address above by December 1, 2012. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the Commission meeting will be maintained in the San Luis Valley Field Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within 30 days following the meeting. Meeting minutes and agendas are also available at:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This order extends the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 6952 as corrected by Public Land Order No. 6962, for an additional 20-year period. The extension is necessary to continue protection of the tree improvement and forest research activities of the Peony, Pole Pick, and Frank Burge Seed Orchards, Washington, which would otherwise expire on November 11, 2012.
Michael L. Barnes, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6155, or Dianne Torpin, United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 503-808-2422. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact either of the above individuals during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with either of the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires this extension to continue protection of the Peony, Pole Pick, and Frank Burge Seed Orchards in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on November 11, 2032, unless as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
Public Land Order No. 6952 (57 FR 53587 (1992)), as corrected by Public Land Order No. 6962 (58 FR 18163
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, announce the availability of the final environmental impact statement on the Narrows Project, a non-Federal dam and reservoir proposed by the Sanpete Water Conservancy District on Gooseberry Creek in Sanpete County, Utah.
We will make a decision on the proposed action 30 days or more after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes their Notice of Availability of Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements in the
The final environmental impact statement is available at
Mr. Peter Crookston, telephone (801) 379-1152; facsimile (801) 379-1159; email
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, we have prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on a proposal under which Sanpete Water Conservancy District (SWCD) would construct, operate, and maintain the Narrows Project—a proposed non-Federal water development and conveyance project funded with a variety of public and private financing and located in part on Federal lands.
The FEIS describes and analyzes the potential effects of four alternatives. The No Action Alternative represents the conditions of the affected area in Sanpete and Carbon counties if the project is not built. The three action alternatives represent three different versions of the Narrows Project, each differing in the size of the dam and reservoir. Three reservoir sizes were analyzed to enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.
Under all three action alternatives, a supplemental water supply would be developed for presently irrigated lands and for municipal and industrial water users in north Sanpete County. The alternatives would require diversion of up to 5,400 acre-feet of water annually from Gooseberry Creek drainage in the Colorado River Basin to northern Sanpete County in the Sevier River drainage basin. The water right used under the action alternatives represents about 6.6 percent of the average annual yield of the Price River above the City of Price. Under all action alternatives, the SWCD's conversion of water from irrigation to municipal and industrial use would occur in stages.
The preferred alternative is to allow SWCD to build, operate, and maintain the largest dam with a reservoir capacity of 17,000 acre-feet of water stored behind a dam with a height of 120 feet, a crest length of 550 feet, and a reservoir surface area of 604 acres. The reservoir would produce an average yield of 5,136 acre-feet per year. In addition, it would provide an average annual supply of 4,281 acre-feet of water for 15,420 acres of farmland and 855 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial use. Irrigation is expected to yield a third crop of alfalfa in an area where usually only two crops are harvested.
The Narrows Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) was issued to the public on March 29, 2010, and we published a Notice of Availability of the SDEIS in the
Copies of the FEIS are available at the following locations:
• Main Interior Building, Natural Resources Library, Room 1151, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240-0001
• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Denver Federal Center, Sixth and Kipling, Building 67, Room 167, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007
• Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 7418, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1147
• Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Area Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606
• College of Eastern Utah, 451 East 400 North, Price, Utah 84501
• Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, 701 East University Parkway, Provo, Utah 84602-6800
• Manti Public Library, 50 South Main Street, Manti, Utah 84642
• Marriott Library, University of Utah, 295 South 1500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
• Merrill-Cazier Library, Utah State University, 3000 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322-3000
• Price Public Library, 159 East Main Street, Price, Utah 84501
• Salt Lake City Public Library, 210 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
• Snow College, 150 East College Avenue, Ephraim, Utah 84627
• Stewart Library, Weber State University, 2901 University Circle, Ogden, Utah 84408
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any communication, you should be aware that your entire comment—including
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 18) granting a motion of respondents to terminate the investigation in its entirety. The investigation is terminated.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 10, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Freescale”), alleging violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain integrated circuits, chipsets, and products containing same including televisions by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,467,455 (“the ’455 patent”). 77 FR 1505-6 (Jan. 10, 2012). The Notice of Investigation named the following as respondents: MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan; Zoran Corporation of Sunnyvale, California; Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan; Sanyo North America Corporation of San Diego, California; Sanyo Manufacturing Corporation of Forrest City, Arizona; TPV Technology Limited of Hong Kong, China; TPV International (USA) Inc. of Austin, Texas; Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., of Zhounghe City, Taiwan; Top Victory Electronics (Fujian) Co., Ltd. of Fuqing City, China; AOC International (USA) Ltd. of Fremont, California (“AOC”); Envision Peripherals, Inc. of Fremont, California; Amtran Technology Co., Ltd. of Xinbei City, Taiwan; and Amtran Logistics, Inc. of Irvine, California. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was named as a party. The Commission later terminated AOC from the investigation.
On July 20, 2012, several of the respondents collectively filed a motion to stay the procedural schedule pending the completion of
On September 18, 2012, respondents filed a motion to terminate this investigation pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a). Respondents argued that no further proceedings are appropriate or necessary in light of the Commission's finding of invalidity concerning the ’455 patent in Inv. No. 337-TA-786. The motion indicated that the Commission investigative attorney did not oppose. On September 27, 2012, Freescale filed a response stating that the Commission's determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-786 that the ’455 is invalid renders its claims in this investigation moot and, as such, it did not oppose the motion to terminate.
On September 28, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting respondents' motion to terminate for good cause pursuant to section 210.21(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21(a)). No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure.
Notice of cancellation and rescheduling of meeting.
The Mecham Conference Center is located on the first floor of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts at 1 Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
Jonathan C. Rose, Chief Rules Officer,
On October 26, 2012, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit entitled
In
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 $41.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $5.50
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Secretary of Labor signed the annual certifications under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. 3301
Transmitted herewith are an original and one copy of the certifications of the states and their unemployment compensation laws for the 12-month period ending on October 31, 2012. One is required with respect to the normal federal unemployment tax credit by Section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), and the other is required with respect to the additional tax credit by Section 3303 of the IRC. Both certifications list all 53 jurisdictions.
Sincerely,
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3304(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3304(c)), I hereby certify the following named states to the Secretary of the Treasury for the 12-month period ending on October 31, 2012, in regard to the unemployment compensation laws of those states which heretofore have been approved under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act:
This certification is for the maximum normal credit allowable under Section 3302(a) of the Code.
Signed at Washington, DC, on October 31, 2012.
In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of Section 3303(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3303(b)(1)), I hereby certify the unemployment compensation laws of the following named states, which heretofore have been certified pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 3303(b) of the Code, to the Secretary of the Treasury for the 12-month period ending on October 31, 2012:
This certification is for the maximum additional credit allowable under Section 3302(b) of the Code, subject to the limitations of Section 3302(c) of the Code.
National Capital Planning Commission.
Notice of 90-day public comment period.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the Planning Commission for the Federal Government within the National Capital Region, intends to release for public comment a draft new Federal Urban Design Element and draft revisions to the Preservation and Historic Features Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements. The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements addresses matters relating to Federal Properties and Federal Interests in the National Capital Region, and provides a decision-making framework for actions the NCPC takes on specific plans and proposals submitted by Federal government agencies for the NCPC review required by law. The new Federal Urban Design Element provides policies that will guide the design and management of federal buildings and properties so as to enhance their adjacent public realm. It will also provide a framework for federal actions related to enhancing the overall character of the District of Columbia and the National Capital Region. The Federal Preservation and Historic Features Element articulates policies that guide federal actions preserving Washington's historic character and providing better stewardship of historic resources. All interested parties are invited to submit written comment. The draft Federal Urban Design Element and draft revised Federal Preservation and Historic Features Element will be available online at
Mail written comments or hand deliver comments on the draft revisions to Comprehensive Plan Public Comment, National Capital Planning Commission, 401 9th Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004.
David Zaidain at (202) 482-7230 or
You may submit comments electronically at the public comment portal at
(40 U.S.C. 8721(e)(2)).
All meetings are held at 2:30 p.m.
Board Agenda Room, No. 11820,1099 14th St. NW.,Washington, DC 20570.
Closed.
Pursuant to § 102.139(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider “the issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition * * * of particular representation or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.” See also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).
Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary, (202) 273-1067.
PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75, which authorize operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem), respectively. The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facilities consist of one boiling-water reactor, HCGS, and two pressurized-water reactors, Salem Units 1 and 2, all located in Salem County, New Jersey.
Part 26 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Subpart I requires licensees to establish a policy for the management of fatigue for all individuals who are subject to the licensee's Fitness-for-Duty program. Regulatory Guide 5.73, “Fatigue Management for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,” endorses the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) report, NEI 06-11, Revision 1, “Managing Personnel Fatigue at Nuclear Power Plants,” with clarifications, additions and exceptions. The NRC staff has endorsed this guidance for use during a plant emergency.
After exiting the emergency, the licensee is immediately subject to the scheduling requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and the work hour/rest break/minimum day off requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(d). All time worked during the emergency must be tracked to help ensure that individuals are not fatigued on the first day of reinstated work hour controls, per 10 CFR 26.205(b)(3). On June 2, 2010, during a public meeting that was held to discuss lessons-learned from Part 26, Subpart I exemption request submissions and work hour controls during periods of severe winds such as a tropical storm or hurricane, the NRC staff indicated that it found NEI report 06-11, Section 7.5, “Reset from Deviations,” to be an acceptable method for resuming work hour controls after the recovery period.
Section 26.205(b) contains the requirement to count work hours and days worked; and (b)(2) was reviewed to understand if the licensee had provided a reasonable opportunity and accommodations for restorative sleep.
Salem and HCGS are located along the eastern shore of the Delaware River and can be impacted by tropical storms and hurricanes during the hurricane season and severe winter precipitation conditions during the months of January and February. By letter dated November 30, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML113350245), as supplemented by letters dated June 4, 2012, and August 30, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12157A061 and ML12244A055, respectively), the licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) for meeting work hour rule controls during declarations of severe weather conditions involving tropical storm or hurricane force winds or severe winter precipitation. According to the application, adherence to work hour control requirements could impede the ability to respond to an emergency condition at the site when travel to and from the site may be impeded. Specifically, the exemption would allow Salem and HCGS to sequester sufficient individuals to establish a 12-hour duty schedule comprised of 2 shifts to maintain safe and secure operation during severe weather conditions.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 26.9, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 26, when the exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 26.207(d), licensees need not meet the requirements of Section 26.205(c) and (d) during declared emergencies, as defined in the licensee's emergency plan. The hurricane-related entry condition for the Salem and HCGS declaration of an Unusual Event is a sustained wind speed greater than 75 miles per hour (mph). The criteria for sequestering essential personnel include travel conditions forecasted to be hazardous for employee commutes to and from the site, such as sustained wind speeds greater than 40 mph, as determined by the National Weather Service. Therefore, the exemption request covers a period which precedes the declared emergency, as individuals need to be sequestered before the severe weather conditions. Similarly, the severe winter weather-related entry conditions are based on forecasts issued by the National Weather Service. The entry conditions include the issuance of a winter storm watch, a blizzard warning or an ice storm warning by the National Weather Service. A winter storm watch is issued by the National Weather Service when there is a potential for heavy snow or significant ice accumulations, usually 24 to 36 hours in advance. A winter storm warning is issued by the National Weather Service when a winter storm is producing or is forecasted to produce heavy snow or significant ice accumulations. Blizzard warnings are issued for winter storms with sustained or frequent winds of 35 mph or higher with considerable falling and/or blowing snow that frequently reduces visibility to
The period immediately following the severe weather conditions may require a recovery period. Also, high winds and inadequate road conditions that make travel unsafe, but fall below the threshold of an emergency, could be present for several days. After the severe weather condition has passed, sufficient numbers of personnel may not be able to access the site to relieve the sequestered individuals. An exemption during these conditions is consistent with the intent of the 10 CFR 26.207(d).
Salem and HCGS plan to establish a 12-hour duty schedule comprised of 2 shifts. When personnel are to be sequestered on site, Salem and HCGS will provide arrangements for onsite reliefs and bunking, in order to allow for a sufficient period of restorative sleep for personnel. The relief and bunking areas will be developed prior to sequestering personnel. The NRC staff finds the actions presented to be consistent with the practice of fatigue management.
The exemption request stated that it would only apply to individuals involved in severe weather response activities that perform duties identified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1) through (5). The exemption does not apply to discretionary maintenance activities. The exemption allows the licensee to provide for the use of whatever plant staff and resources are necessary to respond to a plant emergency and ensure that Salem and HCGS achieve and maintain a safe and secure status and can be safely restarted. Suspension of work hour controls is for site preparation activities and those deemed critical for plant and public safety only. This does not include activities required to restart the units following any severe weather condition.
Salem and HCGS must return to work hour controls when the plant management determines that adequate personnel are available, and both onsite and relief crews have had sufficient time off before resuming their normal work duties. Upon exiting the exemption, the work hour controls in Section 26.205(c) and (d) apply, and the requirements in Section 26.205(3)(b) must be met.
This exemption would allow Salem and HCGS to sequester sufficient individuals to establish a 12-hour duty schedule comprised of 2 shifts to maintain safe and secure operation during severe weather conditions. As stated above, 10 CFR 26.9 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
Section 26.207 provides an exception to the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during declared emergencies, as defined in the licensee's Emergency Response Plan. The proposed exemption expands that allowance for severe weather conditions involving tropical storm or hurricane force winds or severe winter precipitation that may or may not result in the declaration of an emergency. Such an allowance supports sequestering enough required personnel to provide for shift relief, which is necessary to provide a safe and secure status of the units and ensure adequate protection of the health and safety of plant personnel and the public. Therefore, granting this exemption will not endanger life or property.
The proposed exemption would allow Salem and HCGS to sequester sufficient individuals to establish a 12-hour duty schedule comprised of 2 shifts to maintain safe and secure operation during severe weather conditions. This change to the operation of the plant has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
The proposed exemption is already an exception provided in 10 CFR 26.207, which allows the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) to not be met during declared emergencies, as defined in the licensee's Emergency Response Plan. The exemption is needed for a unique set of circumstances to (1) ensure that the control of work hours and management of worker fatigue does not impede the ability to use available staff resources to respond to a severe weather threat, and (2) ensure that the plant maintains a safe and secure status. Therefore, the public interest is served by this focus on nuclear safety and security.
The exemption would authorize exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) to allow Salem and HCGS to sequester sufficient individuals to establish a 12-hour duty schedule comprised of 2 shifts to maintain safe and secure operation during severe weather conditions. Using the standard set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 for amendments to operating licenses, the NRC staff has determined that the subject exemption sought involves employment suitability requirements. The NRC has determined that this exemption involves no significant hazards considerations, as discussed below:
(1) The proposed exemption is administrative in nature and is limited to allowing a temporary exception from meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during severe weather to ensure that work hour controls do not impede the ability to use available staff resources to respond to a severe weather event. The proposed exemption does not make any physical changes to the facility and does not alter the design, function or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, issuance of this exemption does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed exemption does not make any changes to the facility and would not create any new accident initiators. Therefore, this exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed exemption does not alter the design, function or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, this exemption does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above, the NRC has concluded that the proposed exemption does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, and accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has also determined that the exemption involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite; that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; that there is no significant construction impact; and there is no significant increase in the potential for or
The Commission has determined that granting these exemptions is consistent with 10 CFR 26.207(d), “Plant Emergencies,” which allows the licensee to not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) during declared emergencies, as defined in the licensee's emergency plan. The 10 CFR Part 26 Statement of Consideration (73 FR 17148; March 31, 2008) states that, “Plant emergencies are extraordinary circumstances that may be most effectively addressed through staff augmentation that can only be practically achieved through the use of work hours in excess of the limits of § 26.205(c) and (d).”
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 26.9, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) for Salem and HCGS.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request, opportunity to comment, and opportunity to request a hearing, order.
Comments must be filed by December 5, 2012. A request for a hearing must be filed by January 4, 2013. Any potential party as defined in section 2.4 of Title of the
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 NRC-2012-0259 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 is publicly available, by the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0259 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
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 set forth 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, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 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 the 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's E-Filing rule
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