National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Southwestern Power Administration
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Personnel Management.
Interim final rule.
The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing an interim final rule to amend the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) regulations to make certain employees who work on intermittent schedules eligible to be enrolled in a health benefits plan under the FEHBP. This rule is intended to allow agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to apply to OPM for authorization to offer FEHBP coverage to intermittent employees engaged in emergency response functions.
This rule is effective November 9, 2012. OPM must receive comments on or before January 14, 2013.
Send written comments to Michael W. Kaszynski, Senior Policy Analyst, Planning and Policy Analysis, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 3415, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC; or FAX to (202) 606-4640 Attn: Michael Kaszynski. You may also submit comments using the
Michael W. Kaszynski at
On July 17, 2012, OPM issued an interim final regulation to extend eligibility for health insurance coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program (FEHBP) to temporary firefighters and fire protection personnel. 77 FR 42417. In addition, in recognition of the fact that there may be other groups of employees not currently covered by the FEHB program because of the temporary nature of their appointments, the rule allowed agencies to request that OPM extend FEHB coverage to similarly situated temporary employees. We also solicited comments from the public regarding whether OPM should explicitly provide FEHBP coverage to employees who are appointed pursuant to Section 306(b)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5149(b)(1)) (“Stafford Act”) to respond to major disasters and emergencies declared by the President. OPM is currently reviewing the comments it received in response to its interim final regulation.
In the meantime, a major natural disaster, Hurricane Sandy, struck the East Coast of the United States at the end of October. The storm resulted in loss of life and major destruction of property across a wide swath of the Eastern seaboard. In affected areas, 8.5 million people have gone without power, gasoline has been scarce, and massive flooding and cold temperatures have increased the hardship on those living in the storm's path. President Obama declared that major disasters had occurred in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, making disaster assistance available to those in the areas heaviest hit by the storm. The President also signed federal emergency declarations for Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.
Federal agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have worked and continue to work with state and local partners to respond to this emergency. Over 3,000 FEMA employees were immediately deployed to the hardest hit areas. These FEMA workers may be exposed to dangerous conditions, and put their health and safety at risk in order to assist those who have been affected by the storm. Because many of these FEMA employees work intermittent schedules within the meaning of 5 CFR 340.403, they are not eligible for FEHBP coverage under OPM's regulations, specifically 5 CFR 890.102(c)(3).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8913(b), OPM has broad authority to prescribe the conditions under which employees are eligible to enroll in the FEHB program. It is empowered to include or exclude employees on the basis of the nature and type of their employment or conditions pertaining to their appointments, “such as short term appointment, seasonal or intermittent employment, and employment of like nature.”
OPM is issuing this regulation as an interim final rule. Under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), an agency may issue a final rule without first publishing a general notice of proposed rulemaking when it determines, for good cause, that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
Hurricane Sandy left death and massive destruction in its wake. Many of the people in the storm's path continue to be exposed both to the elements (just as colder weather has arrived) and to inherently hazardous conditions where they are located and are thus in immediate need of emergency assistance. FEMA is playing a major role, working with state and local partners, to provide this assistance. Therefore, the federal government has a critical need to deploy additional qualified emergency response workers to serve the American people.
Moreover, emergency response workers are voluntarily exposing themselves to hazardous working conditions every day. They have a need for health insurance coverage to obtain preventive care, to allow for early detection of potentially serious conditions, and to address any health issues that may arise as a result of their service. The regulatory obstacle preventing such agencies as FEMA from submitting a request for FEHBP coverage of these men and women should thus be eliminated without delay.
Because of these conditions, OPM has determined that it would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to delay putting the provisions of this interim final regulation in place until a public notice and comment process has been completed. We find good cause to waive the notice of proposed rulemaking and to issue this final rule on an interim basis. We will accept public comments on this interim final rule for 60 days.
We are also dispensing with the usual requirement that a new rule not take effect until 30 days after it is issued. Instead, this rule is effective immediately upon public display. Immediate effectiveness is authorized because this is a substantive rule granting an exception to the prohibition on providing health insurance coverage to intermittent employees.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only adds additional groups to the list of groups eligible for coverage under FEHB.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866.
We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Health facilities, Health insurance, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
U.S. Office Of Personnel Management.
Accordingly, OPM is amending title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8913; Sec. 890.301 also issued under sec. 311 of Pub. L. 111-03, 123 Stat. 64; Sec. 890.111 also issued under section 1622(b) of Pub. L. 104-106, 110 Stat. 521; Sec. 890.112 also issued under section 1 of Pub. L. 110-279, 122 Stat. 2604; 5 U.S.C. 8913; Sec. 890.803 also issued under 50 U.S.C. 403p, 22 U.S.C. 4069c and 4069c-1; subpart L also issued under sec. 599C of Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; Sec. 890.102 also issued under sections 11202(f), 11232(e), 11246(b) and (c) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; and section 721 of Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 2061.
(i) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, upon request by the employing agency, OPM may grant eligibility to employees performing similar types of emergency response services to enroll in a health benefits plan under this part. In granting eligibility requests, OPM may limit the coverage of intermittent employees under a health benefits plan to the periods of time during which they are in a pay status.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Correcting amendments.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) published for public comment an interim final rule establishing a new Regulation V (Fair Credit Reporting) on December 21, 2011. This document corrects typographical and other technical errors in Appendices I, K, M, and N of the interim final rule, which contain model forms.
These corrections are effective November 14, 2012.
Monica Jackson, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7000.
On December 21, 2011, the Bureau published in the
Among the corrections are the following: Appendix I contained several erroneous references to the FTC and its Web site, which have been updated in this document to refer to the Bureau and its Web site. The addresses in Appendix K for contacting the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings and the Surface Transportation Board have been updated. Typographical errors in the Spanish language translation at the top of Appendices I and K have also been corrected. Appendices M and N have been updated to reflect the promulgation of guidelines and regulations addressing certain obligations of furnishers and users of consumer reports.
To mitigate the impact of these changes on users of the model forms in the Bureau's Appendices I, K, M, and N published December 21, 2011, the Bureau will regard the use of those model forms to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring such forms and will regard those forms to be substantially similar to the corrected forms published today, until further notice. The Bureau anticipates providing that further, notice along with ample time to allow for the orderly discontinuation of the December 21, 2011 model forms, when it issues a final rule to restate Regulation V in 2013.
In issuing the Bureau's Regulation V as an interim final rule, the Bureau found good cause to conclude that providing notice and opportunity for comment was unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
The Bureau also finds good cause to dispense with a 30-day delay of effective date.
Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Holding companies, National banks, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State member banks.
Accordingly, 12 CFR part 1022 is amended by making the following corrections:
12 U.S.C. 5512, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1681a, 1681b, 1681c, 1681c-1, 1681e, 1681g, 1681i, 1681j, 1681m, 1681s, 1681s-2, 1681s-3, and 1681t; Sec. 214, Public Law 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952.
The prescribed form for this summary is a disclosure that is substantially similar to the Bureau's model summary with all information clearly and prominently displayed. A summary should accurately reflect changes to those items that may change over time (such as telephone numbers) to remain in compliance. Translations of this summary will be in compliance with the Bureau's prescribed model, provided that the translation is accurate and that it is provided in a language used by the recipient consumer.
The prescribed form for this summary is a disclosure that is substantially similar to the Bureau's model summary with all information clearly and prominently displayed. The list of Federal regulators that is included in the Bureau's prescribed summary may be provided separately so long as this is done in a clear and conspicuous way. A summary should accurately reflect changes to those items that may change over time (e.g., dollar amounts, or telephone numbers and addresses of Federal agencies) to remain in compliance. Translations of this summary will be in compliance with the Bureau's prescribed model, provided that the translation is accurate and that it is provided in a language used by the recipient consumer.
The prescribed form for this disclosure is a separate document that is substantially similar to the Bureau's model notice with all information clearly and prominently displayed. Consumer reporting agencies may limit the disclosure to only those items that they know are relevant to the furnisher that will receive the notice.
The prescribed form for this disclosure is a separate document that is substantially similar to the Bureau's notice with all information clearly and prominently displayed. Consumer reporting agencies may limit the disclosure to only those items that they know are relevant to the user that will receive the notice.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney Division PW4050, PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152, PW4156, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4160, PW4460, PW4462, and PW4650 turbofan engines, including models with any dash number suffix. This AD was prompted by 16 reports of damaged or failed 3rd stage low-pressure turbine (LPT) duct segments. This AD requires removing from service certain part numbers (P/Ns) of 3rd stage LPT duct segments. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 3rd stage LPT duct segments, which could lead to LPT rotor damage, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.
This AD is effective December 19, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7742; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
One commenter, Boeing, agreed with the intent of the proposed AD.
One commenter, FedEx Express, requested that we add a reference to Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin PW4ENG 72-488 for a list of the engine serial numbers affected. We assume this request was made to add clarity.
We do not agree. The AD applicability is for PW4000 engines with certain P/N 3rd stage LPT duct segments installed. Although the Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin does list engine serial numbers, it is not necessary to include this information in the AD. We did not change the AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We estimate that this AD will affect 151 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that no additional labor costs will be incurred to perform the required work as the work is done when the 3rd stage LPT duct segments are at piece-part exposure. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $44,441 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators will be $6,710,591.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 19, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division PW4050, PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152, PW4156, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4160, PW4460, PW4462, and PW4650 turbofan engines, including models with any dash number suffix, with 3rd stage low-pressure turbine (LPT) duct segments part numbers (P/Ns) 50N095; 50N095-001; 50N235; 50N235-001; 50N494-01; 50N494-001; 50N495-01; or 50N495-001, installed.
This AD was prompted by 16 reports of damaged or failed 3rd stage LPT duct segments. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 3rd stage LPT duct segments, which could lead to LPT rotor damage, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the next piece-part exposure after the effective date of this AD, remove from service 3rd stage LPT duct segments, P/Ns 50N095; 50N095-001; 50N235; 50N235-001; 50N494-01; 50N494-001; 50N495-01; and 50N495-001.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install into any engine any 3rd stage LPT duct segment, P/N 50N095; 50N095-001; 50N235; 50N235-001; 50N494-01; 50N494-001; 50N495-01; or 50N495-001, that is at piece-part exposure.
For the purpose of this AD, piece-part exposure is when the 3rd stage LPT duct segment is removed from the engine and completely disassembled.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7742; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Pratt & Whitney Engine-Duct Segment, Third Stage LPT Assembly Service Bulletin No. PW4ENG 72-488 is related to this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503. You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model P-180 airplanes. That AD currently requires replacement of any firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve with a serial number in a certain range even if it has been previously modified. The way the applicability was written includes valves that should not be affected and are not included in the referenced service information. This AD requires
This AD is effective November 14, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of September 3, 2003 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003).
We must receive any comments on this AD by December 31, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A—Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi Cibrario, 4-16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39 010 6481353; fax: +39 010 6481881; 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:
On August 12, 2003, we issued AD 2003-17-03, amendment 39-13277 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), for certain Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model P-180 airplanes. That AD requires inspection and determination of whether any firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve with a serial number in a certain range is installed and requires replacement or modifications of any valve that has a serial number within this range. This AD allows the pilot to check the logbook and does not require the inspection and replacement requirement if the check shows that one of these valves is definitely not installed.
That AD resulted from a ground fire on the left-hand engine nacelle of one of the affected airplanes caused by a cracked firewall crossfeed valve that had leaked fuel. This airplane model is manufactured in Italy and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Italy, issued Italian RAI-AD 2003-119, dated April 3, 2003, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Italy.
We issued that AD to prevent a faulty firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve from developing cracks and leaking fuel, which could result in an engine fire.
Since we issued AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), we learned that the way the applicability was written includes valves that should not be affected and are not included in PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003.
We reviewed PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003; and Electromech Technologies SB 484-3 AB, dated February 18, 2003. The service information describes procedures for replacing/modifying the firewall and crossfeed valves.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires the same actions as AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), but only affects those firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves referenced in PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the current AD includes firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves that should not be affected by the required actions. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 102 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/modifications that would be required based on the results of the determination. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 14, 2012.
This AD revises AD 2003-17-03, Amendment 39-13277 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003).
(1) This AD applies to PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model P-180 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
(i) certificated in any category; and
(ii) equipped with a firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve that is identified in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003.
(2) The only difference between the applicability of this AD and AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), is that AD 2003-17-03 applied to firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves that should not have been included.
(i) No further action is necessary if the actions of this AD were done in compliance with AD 2003-17-03, Amendment 39-13277 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003).
(ii) Any firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve that was modified per AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003), and re-identified with an “A” at the end of the serial number and is not identified in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003, is an airworthy part and is not affected by this AD.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a report of a ground fire on the left-hand engine nacelle of one of the affected airplanes caused by a cracked firewall crossfeed valve that had leaked fuel. We are issuing this AD to clarify the affected parts required to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003)), check the maintenance records to determine whether a firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve that is affected by this AD is installed. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may perform this check.
(2) If, by checking the maintenance records, the owner/operator can definitely
Within 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003)), inspect the three firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves to determine whether they incorporate a serial number as referenced in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003.
If any of the firewall shutoff or crossfeed valves that are referenced in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003, are found, before further flight, replace or modify each affected valve following PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003; and Electromech Technologies SB 484-3 AB, dated February 18, 2003.
As of 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-17-03 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003)), do not install, on any airplane, a firewall shutoff or crossfeed valve that is referenced in the Effectivity table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003, unless it has been modified per paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 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:
(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) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 50693, August 22, 2003):
(i) PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80-0191, dated February 27, 2003; and
(ii) Electromech Technologies SB 484-3 AB, dated February 18, 2003.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A-Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi Cibrario, 4-16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39 010 6481353; fax: +39 010 6481881; email:
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a source-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD” or “District”) portion of the California SIP. This source-specific SIP revision is known as the CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System (“AB 1318 Tracking System”). The SIP revision consists of enabling language and the AB 1318 Tracking System to revise the District's SIP approved new source review (NSR) program. The SIP revision allows the District to transfer offsetting emission reductions for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM
This final rule is effective on November 14, 2012.
The index to the docket for this final action is available electronically at
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3524,
Throughout this document, “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to EPA.
The Sentinel Energy Project is designed to be a nominally rated 850 megawatt, natural gas-fired electrical generating facility covering approximately 37 acres within Riverside County, adjacent to Desert Hot Springs in the Palm Springs, California area. EPA's
In response to our January 13, 2011 proposed rule, we received four comments. We responded to those comments on April 20, 2011 (76 FR 22038). One commenter, jointly California Communities Against Toxics and Communities for a Better Environment (jointly “CCAT”) filed a Petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“9th Circuit”) shortly thereafter and an Opening Brief on July 26, 2011. On September 14, 2011, EPA requested the 9th Circuit to remand the
We are finalizing our proposal and supplemental proposal to approve the AB 1318 Tracking System into the SIP as a source-specific SIP revision. Even with the slight revision to Attachment A discussed below, the District transferred more offsets into the AB 1318 Tracking System than the amount that is needed to allow Sentinel to operate. We are finalizing our approval because the offsets listed in the Revised Attachment A meet the federal offset integrity criteria, including proper quantification and surplus adjustment. We are finalizing the reasoning in our supplemental proposal for finding that the offsets meet the requirement in 40 CFR part 51, appendix S and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(
In response to CCAT's comments on September 24, 2012, EPA is making a slight revision to Attachment A to the Technical Support Document for our supplemental proposal. Attachment A contains tables showing our evaluation of a subset of all of the facilities from which the District transferred offsets into its AB 1318 Tracking System. In this final rule, we are attaching a slightly revised version of Attachment A to our Response to Comments document. The only change in the Revised Attachment A is that we have applied a more conservative assumption of zero emissions for the data missing for the facilities listed in Attachment A, Section II.B. The facilities listed in Section II.B were missing Year 2 data. Our supplemental proposal assumed that the Year 2 data would be the same as the reported Year 1 data for these offsets. Based on comments we received from CCAT, we changed the assumption for this group of facilities. In our Revised Attachment A, we are assuming that Year 2 data for these facilities is zero. This change means that we are using the most conservative approach (zero emissions) to quantify the offsets. This revision lowers the quantity of offsets listed in Attachment A by 306 pounds for PM
For additional background information, please see the January 13, 2011 notice of proposed rule for this action (76 FR 2294), the notice of final rule (which was remanded without vacatur on July 26, 2012) (76 FR 22038 Apr. 20, 2011) and the August 23, 2012 supplemental proposal (77 FR 50974).
EPA is finalizing our approval of a SIP revision for the South Coast portion of the California SIP. The SIP revision is codified in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(384) and incorporates by reference the CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System, as adopted by the District.
The SIP revision provides a federally approved and enforceable mechanism for the District to transfer PM
Our detailed response to all significant comments is contained in the Response to Comments (“RTC”) document in the docket for this action. The RTC can be accessed through
EPA is revising our final approval slightly from our supplemental proposal to ensure that the most conservative estimation of data is made regardless of whether the facility is missing Year 1 or Year 2 data. This means that EPA is reducing the amount of offsets we are determining are properly quantified in Attachment A, Section II.B. to reduce it by 306 pounds of PM
This source-specific SIP revision complies with all relevant CAA requirements and is consistent with EPA's regulations and guidance. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this source-specific SIP revision into the California SIP. The changes in this final rule from EPA's proposal and supplemental proposal are described above in Section I.B. EPA's interpretation of the CAA and our regulations is provided more fully in our RTC.
Our initial approval of this SIP revision and its related incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations was previously codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(384). Because the SIP submittal has not changed since the initial approval and related codification, and because the previous final rule was not withdrawn, we are not revising the codification of our approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(384) in this final action.
This rule is effective immediately upon publication in the
The purpose of the APA's 30-day effective date provision is to give affected parties time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect. The Sentinel Energy Project, to which this rulemaking applies, requested in a comment letter to EPA that the rule be made effective upon
We find good cause exists here to make this rule effective upon publication because implementing a 30-day delayed effective date would interfere with CPV Sentinel's ability to begin commissioning in November 2012 as scheduled. Such interference would delay Sentinel from becoming fully operational by the summer of 2013, which is when the California Energy Commission is expecting the plant to come on line. This delay could result in significant impacts to electrical reliability and air quality.
In addition, this rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in effective date required for major rules under the CRA does not apply.
This action will approve the source-specific SIP revision known as the CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System into the California SIP. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that this final 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 Federal action proposes to approve 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.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
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. section 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 14, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of flonicamid in or on Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G; Rapeseed subgroup 20A, and cucumber. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective November 14, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 14, 2013, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985, is available at
Sidney Jackson, RegistrationDivision (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7610; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 14, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and/or current Agency policies, EPA has revised/modified the petitioned-for flonicamid residue tolerance level in certain commodities and revised the tolerance expression for flonicamid residues. EPA is also revising the existing crop group tolerance on “Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9” to exclude cucumbers. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flonicamid including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flonicamid follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also
Flonicamid has low acute toxicity via the oral, inhalation and dermal routes of exposure. Flonicamid is nonirritating to the eye and skin and is not a dermal sensitizer. Its metabolites, TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNG, TFNG-AM, and TFNA-OH, also demonstrated low toxicity in acute oral toxicity studies. In the 28-day dermal study with flonicamid technical no dermal or systemic toxicity was seen at the limit dose. In oral studies using rats and dogs, the kidney and liver are the target organs for flonicamid toxicity. Increased kidney weight and hyaline droplet deposition were observed as well as liver centrilobular hypertrophy in the rat 28-day oral range-finding, 90-day oral, developmental, and reproductive studies. The 90-day dog study showed kidney tubular vacuolation as well as increased adrenal weights, increased reticulocytes and decreased thymus weights. Increased reticulocyte count was noted in both the subchronic and chronic dog studies.
In rats, developmental effects including increased incidence of cervical ribs were observed at maternally toxic (liver and kidney gross and histopathological effects) dose levels. In rabbits, developmental effects were not observed at any dose level including maternally toxic doses. Offspring effects (decreased body weight and delayed sexual maturation) in the multi-generation study were seen only in the presence of parental toxicity (kidney effects in males, blood effects in females). Thus, there is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative) in
There are no concerns for flonicamid neurotoxicity. Although clinical signs suggesting potential neurotoxic effects (e.g., decreased motor activity, tremors) were seen in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies; other effects in these studies (e.g., increased mortality, and significant decreases in food consumption and body weight) indicated that the clinical signs were a result of the animals being in an extreme condition or otherwise compromised and in a state of general malaise. Also, these types of effects were not observed in the other subchronic or chronic studies in mice, rats or dogs. Thus, there is not clear evidence of neurotoxicity. Lastly, clear no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect-levels (LOAELs) were defined for the clinical signs, which are above the levels currently used for risk assessment purposes. Preliminary results of a 28-day oral (dietary) immunotoxicity study of technical flonicamid in female CD-1 mice suggest that flonicamid is not an immuno-suppressant, either structurally or functionally up to and including dose levels exceeding the Limit Dose.
Although there is some limited evidence suggesting that flonicamid has apotential for carcinogenic effects, EPA determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., using a chronic reference dose (cRfD)) adequately accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to flonicamid. The following considerations support that determination. First, mutagenicity studies were negative for the parent chemical, flonicamid, and its metabolites, TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNG, TFNG-AM, and TFNA-OH. Second, although flonicamid is carcinogenic in CD-1 mice, based on increased incidences of lung tumors associated with Clara cell activation, this tumor type is associated with species and strain sensitivity and is not directly correlated with cancer risks in humans. Third, nasal cavity tumors seen in male Wistar rats were linked to incisor inflammation and not considered to be treatment related. These tumor findings were confounded by the lack of a dose-response and the biological significance is questionable.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flonicamid as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flonicamid used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv. Anticipated residue and
2.
The drinking water assessment was conducted using a parent only and total toxic residues of flonicamid (flonicamid TTR) approach. Total toxic residues include TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNA-OH, TFNG, and TFNG-AM.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of total toxic residues of flonicamid for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 1.9 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.00132 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 1.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found flonicamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and flonicamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that flonicamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for flonicamid is complete except for an immunotoxicity study and a subchronic inhalation study. Existing data are sufficient for endpoint selection for exposure/risk assessment scenarios, and for evaluation of the requirements under the FQPA. Except for decreased thymus weights in the subchronic dog study,there are no other indications in the available studies that organs associated with immune function are affected by flonicamid, and preliminary results of the above-mentioned immunotoxicity study suggested that flonicamid is not an immunosuppressant. EPA does not believe that the final results of the immunotoxicity study will result in a dose less than the point of departure already used in this risk assessment and an additional database uncertainty factor for potential immunotoxicity does not need to be applied.
A subchronic 28-day inhalation study is required and is outstanding at this time. In the absence of a route specific inhalation study, EPA has retained a 10X FQPA SF to assess risks for inhalation exposure scenarios. However, residential inhalation exposures are not expected.
ii. The available data base includes acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the clinical signs observed in those studies were not the result of a neurotoxic mechanism and that therefore a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
iii. There was no evidence for quantitative or qualitative susceptibility following oral exposures to rats
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. An unrefined conservative chronic dietary exposure assessment for food and drinking water was conducted, assuming tolerance level residues for all existing and proposed commodities and 100 PCT of registered and proposed crops treated. The drinking water assessment utilized water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to produce conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which are not likely to be exceeded. The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessment does not underestimate the potential exposure for infants, children, or women of child bearing age.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methods are available to enforce the tolerances for flonicamid and the major metabolites in plants and livestock. The proposed method for plants uses Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) (FMC No. P-3561M) to determine the residues of flonicamid and its major metabolites, TFNA-AM, TFNA, and TFNG.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever
There are no Codex MRLs established on the proposed crops.
Based on results from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spreadsheet tolerance calculation procedures, EPA modified certain IR-4 proposed tolerances for flonicamid residues. EPA increased the proposed tolerance from 1.4 to 1.5 ppm for Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G and from 1.3 to1.5 ppm for cucumber. Because there is an existing crop group tolerance for “Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9” that applies to cucumbers, EPA, for the sake of clarity, is revising that existing crop group tolerance to exclude cucumbers.
Finally, EPA has revised the tolerance expression to clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of flonicamid not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression.
Therefore, tolerances are established for the residues of flonicamid,
This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The added and revised text read as follows:
(a) * * * (1) Tolerances are established for the residues of the insecticide flonicamid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in thetable below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of flonicamid,
(2) Tolerances are established for the residues of the insecticide flonicamid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of flonicamid,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct Final Rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Waste Management of Michigan-Holland Lagoons Superfund Site (Site), located in Ottawa County, Michigan from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Michigan, through the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This direct final rule is effective January 14, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 14, 2012. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 353-1063. Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding Federal holidays.
• Herrick District Library, 303 South River Avenue, Holland, MI 49423, Phone: (616) 355-3100. Hours: Monday through Tuesday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. EST; Wednesday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST.
Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion Process Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Waste Management of Michigan-Holland Lagoons Superfund Site (Holland Lagoons Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective January 14, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 14, 2012. Along with this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to Delete in the “
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Holland Lagoons Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the State of Michigan prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “
(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the State, through MDEQ, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the Holland Sentinel Newspaper. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
(4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.
(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL.
The Holland Lagoons Site (CERCLIS ID# MID060179587) is located at 2700 North 168th Avenue, between Riley and James Streets, in unincorporated Park Township, near Holland, Michigan. The Site is an 80-acre property located about 0.5 miles from the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in Ottawa County. The Site consists of a site entrance, former lagoon area, dewatering lagoons, former landfill area, a haul road on the eastern half of the Site, and an office/maintenance garage building. The area around the Site consists of mixed residential, recreational, and agricultural use.
Properties adjoining the Holland Lagoons Site include the Riley Road Recreational Area, several small subdivisions of homes, privately held parcels, and a blueberry field to the southeast. The Southwest Ottawa County Landfill (SWOCLF) Superfund Site is adjacent to, northeast, and upgradient of the Holland Lagoons Site. The SWOCLF Site is a state-lead enforcement site. A groundwater plume migrating from the SWOCLF Site impacts the groundwater southwest and downgradient of the county landfill, including groundwater beneath the Holland Lagoons Site.
The Holland Lagoons Site was operated by Jacobusse Refuse Service Company as a municipal garbage dump, liquid waste dewatering facility, and headquarters for its hauling company from the mid 1940's until 1977. The company was purchased by Refuse Services, Inc., in 1972 and the name was changed to Holland Lagoons. Refuse Services, Inc., merged into Michigan Waste Systems, Inc. in 1973 and Michigan Waste Systems, Inc. subsequently changed its name to Waste Management of Michigan, Inc. (WMMI).
A portion of the Site was originally used for the disposal of vegetable pickling waste, apple pulp, digester sludge, barrels of spent extracts, brine, the dewatering of liquid industrial wastes, including aluminum and metal hydroxide wastes, and wastewater treatment plant sludge. Disposal occurred in up to as many as nine dewatering lagoons located in the north central area of the Site. The dewatering of metallic wastes using these lagoons ceased in October 1977. Permits indicate that Jacobusse discontinued disposal of all liquid waste at the Site in 1980. In addition, the southwest area of the Site was used for the temporary burial of drums of chloral hydrate, which were removed in 1980. Municipal refuse was hauled to a landfill located in the south central area of the Site from 1957 to 1964. The landfill operated as an open burning dump and the northwest corner of the Site was used as a maintenance facility for the Jacobusse fleet of trucks.
The Thomas residential well, located due west of the Site, was discovered to be contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) in 1970. The TCE was suspected to have migrated from the Holland Lagoons Site. The continued presence of elevated concentrations of TCE was confirmed in a Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) follow-up sampling event in 1979. Park Township began to hook up residences located within the vicinity of the Holland Lagoons Site, including the Thomas residence, to the expanded municipal water supply line by 1984. The county and township continued to hook up residences downgradient of the Holland Lagoons and SWOCLF Sites into the expanded municipal water supply system. The Holland Lagoons Site was proposed to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 FR 40320) and finalized on the NPL on June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21099).
From 1993 through 1997, EPA and MDEQ (formerly a part of MDNR) held discussions to allow NPL sites with a state-lead enforcement designation to follow the Remedial Action Plan process in Part 201 of the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). The EPA and MDEQ signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 1997 for the Holland Lagoons Site.
In 1994, the MDNR and WMMI entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) for Response Activities for WMMI to undertake a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site. In addition to actions taken earlier, WMMI removed four underground storage tanks from within the truck maintenance area in 1985. Concurrent with the RI, WMMI performed an Interim Response Action (IRA) at the Site by excavating discolored soils plausibly contaminated with heavy metals on the haul road and from other on-site areas and to remove general surface debris from the Site. WMMI also excavated the former municipal trash landfill area and disposed of the material off-site. The interim response was completed by the end of 2000. All subsequent soil samples showed levels of metals at or below generic residential criteria or background values for the State of Michigan. Michigan Part 201 Cleanup Criteria is within EPA's acceptable risk range. WMMI performed a RI and baseline risk assessment, including an ecological assessment at the Site from 1994-1996 and additional sampling between 1998 and 2007.
Additional soil samples were collected from the same location as the previous collection and consisted mostly of the white powder material. Analysis detected no inorganic contaminants at concentrations that exceeded Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria.
A bermed drum area was located in the south end of the former landfill. The berm was 70 by 30 feet and contained six old, rusted drums. These drums were removed during the IRA along with 224 cubic feet of bluish-green stained soil found at the bottom of the bermed area. No contaminants were detected above background or Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria in verification samples.
During an additional investigation, another 540 cubic yards of soil was excavated from the haul road area and disposed of off-site. The verification samples collected demonstrated that the remaining soil met the Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria.
During the investigations, soil boring samples were collected from the areas of the USTs at the northeast corner and southwest corner of the building. The investigation also involved searching the area with an electro-magnetic (EM) detector to determine if there were any large metal objects buried in the area. No drums were detected; therefore, it was concluded that all four of the USTs had been removed. The results of these soil boring samples did not detect any petroleum hydrocarbon or organic contaminants above Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria.
Benzene was the only organic contaminant detected in the on-site monitoring wells above the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria of 5 micrograms per liter (µg/1). All of these detections were found in wells located southwest of the Site at concentrations ranging from 14 µg/l to 28 µg/1 and no on-site source was detected. Benzene is a contaminant being monitored at the SWOCLF Site. At the SWOCLF Site, benzene had been detected at levels as high as 149 µg/1 in purge wells and 305 µg/1 in monitoring wells; therefore, the MDEQ concluded that the source of the benzene is the SWOCLF Site.
Inorganic contaminants found in wells on-site includes: aluminum, arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, zinc, and vanadium. Aluminum, antimony, lead, manganese, and zinc were found in background or anthropogenic background wells. Arsenic did not exceed the MCL or Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria. Subsequent sampling results indicated that aluminum, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, zinc, and vanadium did not exceed MCLs, Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria, background and/or anthropogenic background.
In March 2005, the MDEQ and Ottawa County entered into a Stipulation for the SWOCLF Site, under which Ottawa County is required to perform the following remedial actions at the SWOCLF Site: construct a new landfill cap; install and operate a new extraction well system around the landfill; prevent the discharge to Lake Michigan of groundwater containing hazardous substances exceeding Groundwater to Surface Water Interface Criteria; implement reliable land and resource use restrictions (institutional controls) to restrict construction and use of wells within the groundwater plume; properly abandon all existing residential wells once residents have been hooked into the municipal water supply; and operate the then current downgradient extraction system until it was demonstrated that requirements have been achieved. The responsibility for the remaining wells on the Holland Lagoons Site has been transferred to Ottawa County to use in monitoring the SWOCLF plume.
Currently, Ottawa County has constructed the new landfill cap and completed the hook up of residents to the municipal water supply. In 2009, Ottawa County implemented an area-wide groundwater use restriction which prohibits human consumption of groundwater, limits well installation/use and outlines procedures for well abandonments. All hook ups and abandonments were completed in 2009. Ottawa County continues to operate the downgradient extraction system. In 2009, Ottawa County installed and began operating the new extraction well system along the west and south boundary of the SWOCLF Site.
The rescinded restrictive covenant provided the following restrictions at the Holland Lagoons Site: (1) Restricts the use of the property to those uses compatible with the limited residential land use criteria as defined in Section 20120a(1)(f) of Part 201; (2) prohibits groundwater well installation and groundwater use within the property boundary for all domestic, commercial, and industrial uses; (3) prohibits the construction of groundwater fed impoundments; (4) prohibits excavation of soil beyond the saturated zone; and (5) requires soil sampling if existing structure is razed and 30-days notice to MDEQ.
EPA signed a ROD on August 17, 2011 and has determined that no further remedial action is necessary for the Holland Lagoons Site. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment; and allows for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use.
The August 2011, “No Further Action” ROD determined that no further Federal response was required.
The groundwater underneath the Site is monitored as part of the Ottawa County SWOCLF groundwater monitoring program and contamination in the groundwater plumes is not related to contamination and sources at Holland Lagoons Site. There will be no active remediation at the Site; therefore, no operation and maintenance (O&M) is necessary.
The first and only five-year review, completed on September 25, 2006, found the remedy to be protective in the short-term and identified five issues that needed to be addressed in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term. All of the issues have now been addressed as described below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In summary, EPA has determined that no further remedial action is necessary for the Holland Lagoons Site. Previous responses at the Site eliminated the need for a further remedial action. Contaminated soil from on-site disposal pits was excavated and disposed of off-site. No further five-year reviews are required because contamination has been remediated to allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket, which EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion of this Site from the NPL, are available to the public in the information repositories and at
The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Michigan, has determined that the responsible parties have implemented all response actions required, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.
EPA, with concurrence from State of Michigan through the MDEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. EPA received concurrence from the State of Michigan on April 5, 2012. Therefore, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective January 14, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 14, 2012
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, and Water supply.
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace areas at Casper, Natrona County International Airport, Casper, WY, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic from en route airspace to the airport. Decommissioning of the Muddy Mountain VOR Omnidirectional Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) has made reconfiguration necessary for the safety and management of aircraft operations at Casper, Natrona County International Airport, Casper, WY.
Comments must be received on or before December 31, 2012.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0509; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2012-0509 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-15) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0509 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-15”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface due to the decommissioning of the Muddy Mountain VORTAC at Casper, Natrona County International Airport, Casper, WY. This action also would amend Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the airport by removing the exclusionary language in the regulatory text. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs, 6004, 6005 and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Casper, Natrona County International Airport, Casper, WY.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 4.3 miles each side of the 036° bearing of the Natrona County International Airport extending from the airport to 13.7 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4.3 miles each side of the 216° bearing of the Natrona County International Airport extending from the airport to 15 miles southwest of the airport, and within 2.7 miles each side of the 269° bearing of the Natrona County International Airport extending from airport to 13.5 miles west of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 24-mile radius of the Natrona County International Airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 38-mile radius of the Natrona County International Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 85-mile radius of Natrona County International Airport.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule, notice of intent
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Waste Management of Michigan-Holland Lagoons Superfund Site (Site) located in Ottawa County, Michigan from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of Michigan, through the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
Comments must be received by December 14, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding Federal holidays.
• Herrick District Library, 300 South River Avenue, Holland, MI 49423, Phone: (616) 355-3100, Hours: Monday through Tuesday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. EST; Wednesday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST.
Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion Process Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-7253, or
In the “
For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, and Water supply.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Heller Cave springtail as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and to designate critical habitat. Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this species may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the Heller Cave springtail is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
We request that we receive information on or before January 14, 2013. The deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We will post all information we receive on
Martin Miller, Threatened and Endangered Species Chief, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; by telephone at 413-253-8615; or by facsimile at
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly initiate review of the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the Heller Cave springtail (
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including survey data and distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(3) Information related to the operation and status of the small, large, or both, non-coal mining project(s) and permit(s) associated with the “Carlim Quarry” or “Catherine Properties-Heller Mine” in Catherine Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. The owner or operator of this project may be known as Gulf Trading and Transport, Catherine Corporation, or General Trade Corporation.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the Heller Cave springtail is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species;” and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding is available for you to review at
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time of the petition's receipt. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly initiate a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.
On October 13, 2011, we received a petition dated October 13, 2011, from Mollie Matteson (petitioner), on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Juniata Valley Audubon Society (JVAS), requesting that the Heller Cave springtail be listed as endangered and that critical habitat be designated under the Act (Petition). The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a January 8, 2012, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we had received the petition sent to the Secretary of the Interior and that we would contact the petitioner when we completed review of the petition. On January 11, 2012, the petitioner sent additional information to supplement the October 13, 2011 petition. This finding addresses the supplemented petition.
There are no previous Federal actions on the Heller Cave springtail.
The Heller Cave springtail is a small, wingless, cave-dwelling arthropod in the Family Hypogastruridae and Order Collembola. All Collembola have the common name of “springtail” because of their furcula, or “jumping apparatus”
The petitioner, citing the scientist who first described the species, asserts that the Heller Cave springtail is endemic to Heller Cave in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania (Petition, p. 5; Christiansen and Wang 2006, p. 93). The type locality (location where the type specimen was collected), Heller Cave #5, is one of nine caves in a cave complex (Petition, p. 7) spanning the Blair-Huntingdon County line. The type specimen was collected within the cave on a pool surface (Christiansen and Wang 2006, p. 94). However, information in our files suggests that it may not be reasonable to automatically assume the species is solely endemic to Heller Cave. Discussion between Joseph Reznik, a springtail expert from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, and Betsy Leppo, an invertebrate zoologist with the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP), indicates that there is uncertainty about previous assumptions regarding the species' aquatic nature and cave endemism (Leppo 2010, pp. 1-2). In an electronic mail message to PNHP staff, the springtail expert stated “Many species of springtails that have been attributed to being cave endemics have been classified being endemic based on physical characteristics (i.e., loss of pigment, eyes, etc.), but many soil species also have these characteristics,” and suggested that Heller Cave springtail surveys be conducted in the scree and talus environments outside of Heller Cave (Leppo 2010, p. 2). We are unaware of whether PNHP or Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) conducted further surveys for Heller Cave springtail outside of the species' type locality.
We have no information about the Heller Cave springtail's habitat outside of the type locality, diet, reproduction, or population size. Inferring information from other springtails may not be fully reliable, as some of these characteristics within the Collembola Order vary widely. For example, Christiansen (1992, p. 2) states Collembola “occur almost everywhere from the tops of the tallest trees to the deepest soil strata where life occurs. They are in fact found everywhere life of any sort is found except the open ocean or below surface in bodies of freshwater.” As for diet, some species eat plant material, others eat micro-organisms, and some exhibit cannibalistic traits and eat their own eggs (Christiansen 1992, p. 4; Bellenger et al. 1996, pp. 2-3). In general, Collembola exhibit sexual differentiation (male and female individuals), and reproduction occurs through the deposition and reception of spermatophores (sperm packets); eggs are laid; and molting occurs during growth (Christiansen 1992, pp. 4-5). Christiansen and Wang (2006, p. 93) did collect both male and female individuals in Heller Cave #5. None of the readily available information sources indicate what a typical population size for Collembola species may be, and no typical population size is available specifically for the Heller Cave springtail.
The species was formerly described by Christiansen and Wang (2006, entire). We do not have any information in our files that indicates controversy with the species' taxonomy; therefore, at this time we are recognizing the Heller Cave springtail as a valid species.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding threats to the Heller Cave springtail, as presented in the petition and other information available in our files is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
The petitioner states that a proposed limestone quarry in Blair County, Pennsylvania, would significantly modify or destroy the Heller Caves complex, the only known location of the Heller Cave springtail (Petition, p. 10). The petitioner states that in June 2010, “* * * the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [DEP], Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, issued a small non-coal mining permit to Catherine Properties, LLC, for a project at and around the Heller Caves site. This permit allows logging, road building, and removal of up to 10,000 tons per year of rock and other surface materials (Pennsylvania DEP 2010a)” (Petition, p. 10). The petitioner also states that “even if a quarry does not completely obliterate a cave, it can cause significant harm to cave habitat in several ways,” including structural damage; changes in temperature, humidity, water quality, and water quantity; and trampling of flora and fauna, littering, and introduction of foreign substances through increased human access (Petition, pp. 12-14). The petitioner asserts that these impacts are particularly problematic for cave
The petitioner's assertion that the limestone quarry (i.e., mine) proposed for operation in Blair County, Pennsylvania, near the Heller Caves complex will remove a significant amount of rock, is corroborated by readily available information within the Service's files (Secor 2006a, entire; Secor 2006b, entire; Service 2006, entire; Service 2009, entire; Stormer 2009, entire; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2010, entire; Stormer 2010a, entire; Stormer 2010b, entire). The amount of total acreage of the proposed site varies from 5 to 187 acres (2 to 76 hectares (ha)), and the acreage and potential location of disturbance varies from 5 to 7.4 acres (2 to 3 ha) inside or outside of the Heller Caves core area, depending upon the source of the information (Secor 2006a, p. 1; PADEP 2009, p. 1; Service 2009, p. 1; Stormer 2009, p. 1; USDA 2010, pp. 1, 4; Stormer 2010a, p. 1; Stormer 2010b, p. 1; Turner 2010, p. 1; Petition, p. 11). We do not have readily available copies of the permit request from Gulf Trading and Transport (sometimes alternatively known as Catherine Properties or General Trade Corporation) including the scope of, and specific activities associated with, a small or large non-coal mining operation, the approved permit from PADEP, or PGC's comments on the proposed permit to be able to state the actual recorded site and disturbance acreages.
We have limited information on the project's proposed impacts to the area. We only have project information regarding the potential size, county location, and land clearing (e.g., forestry) activities provided to us when we conducted three separate project analyses for potential impacts to the federally listed northeastern bulrush (
Because we do not have readily available, project-specific information about the proposed Heller Cave mine project beyond the potential project size, county location, and impacts to Indiana bat habitat from forestry clearing we used in the 2006, 2009, and 2010 reviews, we cannot assess the accuracy of the petitioner's mining operation project details (Petition, pp. 10-12). If the petitioner's information is correct about blasting activities being a part of the small (or large) non-coal mining permit (Petition, p. 11), the potential effects of the blasting activity may impact the Heller Cave springtail. The Heller Caves complex is identified in a Blair County planning document as core habitat for eastern small-footed bat (
The petitioner did not provide any information on overutilization of the Heller Cave springtail.
We have no information in our files to suggest overutilization may be a threat to the Heller Cave springtail.
The petitioner did not provide any information on disease or predation of the Heller Cave springtail.
We have no information in our files to suggest disease or predation may be a threat to the Heller Cave springtail.
The petitioner makes three separate inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanism assertions. First, the petitioner asserts that the Heller Cave springtail has no protective status at the local, State, or Federal level and, therefore, current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect it (Petition, p. 14). The petitioner further states that even if the Heller Cave springtail was State-listed or a species of concern, those protective statuses would likely provide inadequate protection. This assertion is based on the petitioner's assessment that the PADEP issued the small, non-coal mining permit despite the documented presence of the eastern small-footed bat,
The petitioner's first assertion is that the Heller Cave springtail is not a protected species under current regulatory mechanisms at the local, State, and Federal level, and therefore, those mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species (Petition, p. 14). The petitioner states that since there is a lack of regulatory recognition for the species “no deliberate program for its conservation can or has been instituted” (Petition, p. 15).
The petitioner's second assertion is that recognition of the Heller Caves complex as a “Biological Diversity Area” and “Important Bird Area” is insufficient to regulate protection of the Heller Cave springtail (Petition, p. 15). A Biological Diversity Area (BDA) is defined as “An area containing plants or animals of special concern at State or Federal levels, exemplary natural communities, or exceptional native diversity. BDAs include both the immediate habitat and surrounding lands important in the support of these special elements” (WPC 2006, p. 6). The BDAs are used in conservation planning to “identify core areas that delineate essential habitat that cannot absorb significant levels of activity without substantial impact to the elements of concern” (WPC 2006, p. 6). An Important Bird Area (IBA) is defined as “a site that is part of a global network of places recognized for their outstanding value to bird conservation” with application for conservation planning to maintain the areas for valuable bird habitat (WPC 2006, p. 6). The Heller Caves complex site is ranked as a BDA of high significance because it provides a “winter hibernation site for bat colonies, including the state and global-concern species eastern small-footed myotis” (WPC 2006, p. xi). The BDA and IBA designations are nonregulatory community planning tools. The petitioner concedes that “designation as a BDA confers no regulatory protection” (Petition, p. 15).
Third, the petitioner asserts that the State's current environmental review and permitting process failed to protect the Heller Cave springtail or its habitat (Petition, p. 16). The proposed Heller Cave limestone mine project overlaps the Heller Caves BDA. The Heller Caves BDA contains the eastern small-footed bat and the Heller Cave springtail (Petition, p. 16; WPA 2006, p. 46). The eastern small-footed bat is a State-listed species and falls under the PGC's jurisdiction. The Heller Cave springtail is neither a federally or State-listed invertebrate nor a State species of concern (Shellenberger 2010, p. 1; Leppo 2010, p. 1). Information in our files at the time of the petition's receipt indicates uncertainty as to whether the Heller Cave springtail is a true aquatic invertebrate and, therefore, falls under the PA Fish and Boat Commission's jurisdiction, or whether it is a terrestrial invertebrate and therefore falls under PNHP's jurisdiction (Leppo 2010, p. 1). The Service is unaware of which State agencies the PADEP contacted to review the mine project for impacts to the Heller Cave springtail.
The PGC was contacted to review the project for possible impacts to the eastern small-footed bat (Petition, p. 11; Shellenberger 2010, p. 1). According to the Petition (p. 15), the PGC recommended a “Total Avoidance Area” around Heller Cave because the proposed quarrying project is likely to disturb or destroy winter and summer bat habitat. The petitioner did not provide PGC's comments on the mining project to the Service as part of the Petition's references, and those comments are not readily available to the Service. We have no readily available information to confirm the Petition's assertion that the existing environmental review and mine permitting processes may be inadequate to protect the Heller Cave springtail or its habitat, through the surrogacy of the eastern small-footed bat. Based on review of the Petition's information, we conclude that the Petition indicates that the existing permit processes may be inadequate to protect the Heller Cave springtail.
The petitioner states that three anthropogenic factors are threats to the Heller Cave springtail: (1) Direct mortality as a result of rock removal and blasting, (2) cave vandalism and direct human-caused mortality, and (3) climate change (Petition, pp. 16-17).
The petitioner first asserts, with no supporting information, that the Heller Cave springtail is threatened from “direct take” (i.e., mortality) as a result of the proposed limestone quarry's rock removal and blasting operations (Petition, p. 16). Information in our files suggests that some of the proposed quarry activities may occur outside of the Heller Cave core area (Stormer, 2010a, p. 1; Turner, 2010, p. 1; Shellenberger 2010, p. 1). However, our information does not state how much of the quarry operations or what type (i.e., blasting vs. land clearing) of quarry operations may occur outside of the Heller Cave core area. If blasting and rock removal activities take place within the Heller Cave core area, including Heller Cave #5—the type locality for the Heller Cave springtail and hibernacula site of the eastern small-footed bat—those activities as described in the petition may impact the Heller Cave springtail (Petition, pp. 10-14). Blasting and rock removal activities may destabilize the cave site (WPC 2006, pp. 46). If the cave destabilizes to the point that collapsing material falls on the locations where the Heller Cave springtail specimens were collected, then direct mortality may occur. We conclude that direct mortality could occur from rock removal and blasting if those activities occur within or very near the Heller Caves complex.
The petitioner further asserts that the Heller Cave springtail is threatened by cave vandalism and intentional human-caused mortality. The petitioner does not provide information to support this assertion, merely stating that “it is possible that one or more attempts could be made to obliterate this unique species” prior to protection under the Act (Petition, p. 17). We do not have any information in our files to indicate that this intentional harm may be a specific threat to the Heller Cave springtail. We are not aware of specific vandalism instances for eastern small-footed bat hibernacula in Pennsylvania or for the Heller Caves complex. Therefore, it is unlikely that the cave site itself may be
The petitioner lastly asserts that “climate change may be affecting the Heller Cave springtail at this time, or it may in the future” (Petition, p. 17). The petitioner cites three documents in this section, only one of which can be assessed for accuracy. Of the other two, the Natural Resource Council 2006 citation does not relate to the information for which it is used as a citation. The Toomey and Nolan 2005 citation is not included in the petitioner's list of literature cited and consequently could not be quickly searched for or located. The petitioner did not include copies of the references. The petitioner's third citation is a Service (2011, p. 1) blog post about climate change and its impacts on Indiana bat conservation efforts, which includes a bat biologist quoted as saying “Surface temperature is directly related to cave temperature, so climate change will inevitably affect the suitability of hibernacula” (Petition, p. 17).
We have general information in our files indicating that climate change is occurring. The Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presents credible science on global climate change. The IPCC concludes that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by observations of increasing global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC 2007, p. 2). The warming trend is expected to continue as a result of a projected increase of global greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 90 percent from 2000 to 2030, which would be greater than the change observed during the 20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 7). Although there is some uncertainty regarding the mechanics of climate change and how much temperatures will change, the projected global average surface increase is estimated to range from 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F and 11.5 °F) in 2090 to 2099 over the temperatures observed during the 19-year period of 1980 to 1999 (IPCC 2007, p. 8).
We do not have any readily available information as of the petition's receipt that further refines the IPCC's (2007, entire) conclusions at regional or local scales to allow us to assess whether, or to what extent, the Heller Cave springtail may be impacted by climate change. The petitioner acknowledges that how regional climate change may impact the Heller Cave springtail is unknown (Petition, p. 17) but suggests the Heller Cave springtail “would be highly vulnerable to climate-related shifts in its physical environment” because it is an “extremely range-limited cave obligate” species. As discussed above in the
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Heller Cave springtail throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under factors A, D, and E. We determine that the information provided under factors B and C is not substantial.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the Heller Cave springtail may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the Heller Cave springtail under the Act is warranted.
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Northeast Regional Office.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC 1431,
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) specifies that each NMS should revise their management plans on a five-year cycle. The FGBNMS has begun the management plan review process. The NMSA also allows for the creation of Sanctuary Advisory Councils (SACs). SACs are comprised of representatives of all NMS stakeholders. Management Plan Review (MPR) is a public process and the SACs, along with a series of public meetings, are used to help scope out issues in revising the management plans and regulations. SAC Working Groups are often used to evaluate management or regulatory alternatives. In the current MPR for the FGBNMS, two major issues have emerged: Boundary expansion and research-only areas. In addition, several new or modified regulations are being considered to meet specific needs for diver safety and resource protection (no anchoring/mooring buoy use requirement and a more stringent pollution discharge regulation).
To address each one these issues, a socioeconomic panel composed of NOAA staff and social scientists from other agencies, or from universities, developed information and tools to assess the socioeconomic impacts of management strategies and regulatory alternatives. The information and tools developed in this process will also provide the necessary information for meeting agency requirements for socioeconomic impact analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12086 (Regulatory Impact Review) and an Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (impacts on small businesses). Our initial plan, as the first step in the assessment process, was to interview three key sanctuary user groups—commercial fishers, for-hire recreational dive operations and for-hire recreational fishing operations (charter and party/head boat operations)—with questions focusing on: (1) general information, economic information and trip costs and (2) knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of sanctuary management strategies and regulations.
In 2011-2012, the for-hire dive and fishing industry interviews were completed. The commercial fisheries interviews were not begun due to lack of funding; we have the funding now and expect to complete these interviews. The for-hire dive and fishing industries are dynamic with entry and exit of businesses. We estimate the possibility of up to four new businesses over the next three years.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at JJessup@doc.gov).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at (202) 482-8029 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
On October 2, 2012, in response to a request by domestic producers of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.
On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.
On October 2, 2012, the Department published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances reviews of the
The merchandise covered by the orders is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive.
Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.222(g), the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (
As noted above and in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(g), the Department preliminarily determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe that changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant revocation of the
Unless the Department receives opposition within the time limit set forth below from domestic producers whose production, cumulatively, totals more than 15 percent of the domestic like product, the Department will revoke the
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice.
This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 351.221(c)(3), and 351.222.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 14, 2013.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Lindsey Feldman, (978) 675-2179 or
This request is for revision and extension of a current information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect information from users of the resource.
As regional Fishery Management Councils develop specific Fishery Management Plans (FMP), the Secretary has promulgated rules for the issuance of permits to individuals and organizations participating in Federally controlled fisheries in order to: (1) Register fishermen, fishing vessels, fish dealers and processors, (2) List the characteristics of fishing vessels and/or dealer/processor operations, (3) Exercise influence over compliance (e.g. withhold issuance pending collection of unpaid penalties), (4) Provide a mailing list and email list for the dissemination of important information to the industry, (5) Register participants to be considered for limited entry, and (6) Provide a universe for data collection samples. Identification of the participants, their gear types, vessels, and expected activity levels is an effective tool in the enforcement of fishery regulations.
Limited access fishing permits, where entry is reviewed during a one-time application period, place size, tonnage, and horsepower restrictions on the ability of a vessel owner to upgrade or replace their vessel. If a vessel owner wishes to upgrade any of the specifications of his/her vessel such as length overall, net tonnage, gross tonnage, horsepower, or vessel fish hold capacity, he/she must submit, in writing, a request for a vessel upgrade. A request, in writing, also must be made in order to replace one limited access permitted vessel with another as vessel size restrictions are limited to 10-percent above the baseline length overall, gross, and net tonnage, 20-percent above the baseline horsepower, and 10-percent above the vessel hold capacity measurement for limited access vessels with Tier 1 or 2 Atlantic mackerel permits.
Vessels with particular permits are also required to use an electronic vessel monitoring system (VMS) to declare their intent to fish before starting a particular trip, change their intent to fish during a trip, and to report real-time catch and discard information. While vessels are also required to report catch information weekly or monthly depending on their permit through vessel trip reports (VTRs)(VTR collection approved in OMB Control No. 0648-0212), it is often necessary to have daily catch reporting in order to have a real-time understanding of the operation of the fishery. Real-time catch reporting is especially important for high volume fisheries, where large amounts of fish are landed in short periods of time, so that the fishery can be shut down when approaching the annual, regional, or seasonal quota.
This collection also includes the requirement of participants in certain fisheries to notify NMFS before fishing trips for the purpose of observer placement. The placement of fisheries observers is critical to accurately monitoring and collecting information on fish catch, discards, gear performance, socio-economic information about vessel crew and operations, etc. Vessels are also required to request, in writing, participation in any of the various exemption programs offered in the Northeast region. Exemption programs may allow a vessel to fish in an area that is limited to vessels of a particular size, using a certain gear type, or fishing for a particular species. Vessels are also required to request gillnet and lobster tags through the Northeast region permit office when using gillnet gear or lobster traps. Lastly, vessel owners that own multiple vessels, but would like to request communication from NMFS be consolidated into one mailing (and not separate mailings for each vessel), may request the single letter vessel owner option to improve efficiency of their business practice.
This revision/extension removes the expedited submission of proposed special access programs (SAPs), days-at-sea (DAS) transfer program requirements, and Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) reporting requirements to avoid duplication, as this information has been moved to another collection (OMB Control No. 0648-0605).
All vessel permit applications including initial permit applications for vessels and dealers, vessel and dealer renewal applications, vessel operator permit applications, gillnet and lobster trap tag purchase are submitted by signed paper form sent in the mail.
Vessels with VMS requirements are required to declare their intent to fish (i.e. declare into the fishery) and submit daily catch reports using electronic VMS units on board the vessel. VMS power down exemption requests are submitted by signed paper form.
Vessels issued certain permits such as NE multispecies, monkfish, scallop, and Atlantic herring permits are required to give advance notification to the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) before the start of a trip in order to receive a fisheries observer or a waiver. Vessels use an online pre-trip notification system, email, toll-free call in number, or a local phone number to comply with this requirement.
Vessels that would like to request participation in one or more of the NE fisheries exemption programs must either submit a request electronically using their VMS unit, by declaring into an exempted fishery prior to the start of a trip, or by mailing in a written request to participate in the program(s) of interest.
Vessel owners that own multiple vessels, but would like to receive only a single NE Fisheries Bulletin or small entity compliance guide instead of one for each vessel permit, must submit a request, in writing, to NMFS to participate in this program.
Vessel permit application: 45 minutes; Vessel permit renewal forms: 30 minutes; Initial dealer permit applications: 15 minutes; Dealer permit renewal forms: 5 minutes; Initial and renewal vessel operator permit applications: 1 hour; Obtaining and submitting a dealer or vessel owner email address: 5 minutes; Limited access vessel upgrade or replacement applications: 3 hours; and Applications for retention of limited access permit history: 30 minutes.
Installing a VMS unit: 1 hour; Confirming VMS connectivity: 5 minutes; VMS certification form: 5 minutes; VMS installation for Canadian herring transport vessels: 1 hour and 20 minutes; Email to declare their entrance and departure from U.S. waters: 15 minutes; Automatic polling of vessel position using the VMS unit: 0 minutes; Area and DAS declarations: 5 minutes; Declaration of days-out of the gillnet fishery for monkfish and NE multispecies vessels: 3 minutes; Departure and landing notification for monkfish and occasional sea scallop vessels using the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system: 2 minutes; Good Samaritan DAS credit request: 30 minutes; Entangled whale DAS credit request: 30 minutes; DAS credit for a canceled trip due to unforeseen circumstances, but have not yet begun fishing: 5 minutes to request via the VMS unit and 10 minutes to request via the paper form; VMS catch reports for trips in NE multispecies broad stock areas: 15 minutes; All other NE multispecies VMS reporting requirements, such as U.S. Canada Area, Closed Area II Special Access Programs, etc: 15 minutes; VMS catch reports by Atlantic herring vessels: 7 minutes, VMS power down exemption: 30 minutes.
Requests for observer coverage are estimated to require either 2 or 10 minutes per request, depending on the program for which observers are requested.
Letter of Authorization (LOA) to participate in any of the exemption programs: 5 minutes; Charter/Party Exemption Certificate for GOM Closed Areas: 2 minutes; Limited access sea scallop vessels state waters DAS exemption program or state waters gear exemption program: 2 minutes; Withdraw from either state waters exemption program prior to the end of the 7-day designated exemption period requirement: 2 minutes; Request for change in permit category designation: 5 minutes; Request for transit to another port by a vessel required to remain within the GOM cod trip limit: 2 minutes; Gillnet category designation, including initial requests for gillnet tags: 10 minutes; Requests for additional tags: 2 minutes; Notification of lost tags and requests for replacement tag numbers: 2 minutes; Attachment of gillnet tags: 1 minute; Initial lobster area designations: 5 minutes; Requests for additional tags: 2 minutes; and notification of lost tags: 3 minutes; Requests for state quota transfers in the bluefish, summer flounder and scup fisheries: 1 hour; GOM cod trip limit exemption: 5 minutes; Vessel owner single letter option: 5 minutes.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Applications for six new scientific research permits, one permit modification, and one permit renewal.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received eight scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon, the southern distinct population segment of eulachon, and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to
Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Chum salmon (
Sockeye salmon (
Coho salmon (
Rockfish: Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) bocaccio (
Eulachon: The southern Distinct Populations Segment (DPS) of pacific eulachon (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The City of Bellingham (COB) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The sampling would take place in Cemetery Creek, a tributary of Whatcom Creek in Bellingham, WA. The purpose of the study is to assess the effectiveness of habitat restoration measures implemented as part of the Whatcom Creek Long-term Restoration Plan by documenting fish population trends. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs as well as providing data to support future enhancement projects. The COB proposes to capture fish using a smolt trap placed in Cemetery Creek. Fish would be identified by species and measured, have a tissue sample taken (to determine their origin), and be released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The University of Washington (UW) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, PS steelhead, and PS/GB bocaccio. The UW research may also cause them to take the following species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions: Southern DPS of Pacific eulachon, PS/GB canary rockfish, and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish. Sampling would take place throughout Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The purpose of the study is to determine the timing and magnitude of size-selective mortality and other factors that affect growth and survival during the early marine growth period for salmon. This research would benefit the affected species by shedding light on the relationship between salmonid marine mortality, body size, and abundance and thus aid management and guide recovery efforts for various salmonid populations. The UW proposes capturing fish by mid-water trawl, beach seine, and purse seine. The mid-water trawling would be conducted by Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (CDFO) research vessels using a mid-water rope trawl during daylight at various depths and velocities. The mid-water trawl surveys would be coordinated with surveys in Canadian waters. The beach seining and purse seining are designed generate data on critical life stages for different stocks and species of salmon, relate stage-specific size and growth to smolt-adult returns ratios, and increase our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that affect growth at these life stages. During the mid-water trawls, the fish would be identified by species, weighed, measured for length, and checked for coded wire tags (CWTs). Viable adult salmon and rockfish would be released. Any juvenile salmon that suffer lethal injuries would be further sampled for CWTs, scales, fins, stomach contents, and otoliths. During the beach and purse seining, the fish would be anesthetized, identified by species, checked for CWTs, sampled for stomach contents and scale and fin tissues, and released. All juvenile CWT fish would be intentionally sacrificed to determine their origins. The researchers do not propose to kill any other captured fish, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
Environ International Corporation (Environ) is requesting a one-year scientific research permit to take juvenile SR fall Chinook salmon, SR spr/sum Chinook salmon, UCR Chinook salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho, SR sockeye salmon, SR steelhead, UCR steelhead, MCR steelhead, LCR steelhead, and UWR steelhead. The objective of the research is to study the degree to which juvenile salmonids may be getting stranded by ship wakes along the lower Columbia River between river mile 21 and 102. The researchers would investigate the potential for stranding at approximately 24 “high risk” sites. The researchers would also evaluate whether the strategic placement of dredged material could reduce the risk of stranding. The research would benefit the listed species by helping river managers determine the likelihood of juvenile stranding along the lower river and investigate potential means for reducing it. Environ would use beach seines to capture, handle, and release juvenile fish. Environ may also collect stranded fish and return them to the river. Environ does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
ICF International (ICF) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling would take place in the Snohomish River estuary. The purpose of the study is to count listed fish during their peak outmigrations and thereby determine how well habitat has been restored by the Smith Island dike breaching. This research would benefit the affected species by helping guide future estuarine habitat restoration and enhancement projects. The ICF would use hand-held beach seines and dip nets to capture the fish. They would be identified by species, measured, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to modify a research permit that currently allows them to annually take adult and juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and PS/GB bocaccio. The researchers may also take PS/GB canary rockfish and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish—species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place near the northern islands in the San Juan Island archipelago. The purpose of the study is to determine how much genetic variation exists between coastal and Puget Sound populations of canary and yelloweye rockfish. The research would benefit rockfish by increasing our understanding of the connectivity (or lack thereof) between rockfish populations in the Puget Sound and populations on the outer coast. The NWFSC proposes to capture fish using hook and line equipment at depths of 50-100 meters during slack tides. Fish would slowly be reeled to the surface to reduce barotrauma. All Chinook salmon and steelhead would be immediately released at the capture site. All captured ESA-listed rockfish would have a small portion of their fin tissue removed for genetics studies and be returned to the water via rapid submersion techniques. If an individual of these species is captured dead or deemed nonviable, it would be retained for genetic analysis. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, PS steelhead, and OL sockeye salmon. Sampling would take place in some of the streams in Clallam, Jefferson and Grays Harbor counties of western Washington. The purpose of the research is to determine the presence of any fish species in streams located on lands managed by WDNR. This research would benefit the affected species by determining which streams with road-related passage barriers contain listed fish and thus allow DNR to focus its resources on road improvements that would best help those species. The WDNR would use backpack electrofishing equipment to conduct the surveys. The shocked fish would be netted, identified by species, and released. In most cases, the stream survey would terminate with the location of one fish. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
Mary Harenda Environmental Consulting (MHEC) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and juvenile and adult PS steelhead. Sampling would take place in the Snohomish River basin. The purpose of the study is to determine fish presence and relative abundance at the Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank (SBMB) during spring (high flow) and summer (low flow). This research would benefit the affected species by generating information to help guide future salmonid habitat restoration efforts at the SBMB. The MHEC proposes to use beach seines, dip nets, and purse seines to capture the fish. The fish would be identified by species, measured, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
Hart Crowser, Inc. (HCI) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling would take place in the South Fork Sauk River watershed upstream of the confluence with Elliot Creek. The purpose of the study is to monitor and analyze river, stream, and lake conditions during and after the Federal cleanup of the Monte Cristo Mining Area (mined from 1889 to 1907) for the Washington State Department of Ecology to determine future remedial actions. This research would benefit the affected species by documenting aquatic conditions and thereby guiding future actions to improve salmonid habitat. The HCI would use backpack electrofishing equipment, beach seines, hook and line, minnow traps, and gill nets to capture the fish. The fish would be identified by species, measured, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of receipt of a permit application; request for comments.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received an application for a permit (Permit 15610) to conduct research for scientific purposes from the Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (OSU). The requested permit would affect the endangered Southern California (SC) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead (
Written comments on the permit application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the permit application should be sent to Matt McGoogan, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Comments may also be sent using email
Matt McGoogan at phone number (562) 980-4026 or email:
Issuance of permits, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).
Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should provide the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
OSU has applied for a permit (Permit 15610) to study steelhead in the Ventura River watershed in Ventura County, California. The primary objectives of this study are to (1) determine if population genetic structure exists in the steelhead and rainbow trout subpopulations in the Ventura Basin, (2) determine smoltification patterns of steelhead and rainbow trout in the Ventura Basin and influence between the two life history forms, and (3) determine downstream migration patterns for steelhead and rainbow trout and how those patterns may be influenced by environmental conditions. Research activities include (1) Monitoring water temperature, (2) capturing smolts and adult steelhead in a migrant trap at the Robles Diversion Dam, (3) capturing smolts and juvenile steelhead using a seine in the Ventura River estuary, (4) capturing smolts and juvenile steelhead by electrofishing pre-determined sample sites throughout the Ventura River watershed, (5) recording weight and length of smolts and juvenile steelhead, (6) removing tissue (gill and fin clip) samples from smolts and juvenile steelhead, (7) analyzing fin clips for genetic structure, (8) analyzing gill samples for ATPase (decomposition of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) into adenosine diphosphate and a free phosphate ion) as an indicator of smoltification, and (9) inserting Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags into smolts and juvenile steelhead. Field activities for the proposed research will occur between December 2012 and May 2014. For the proposed study, OSU has requested non-lethal capture and release of up to 210 juvenile steelhead (30 juvenile steelhead from 7 different sites over the course of 1 year) for the purpose of genetic sampling (fin clip), the capture and release of up to 684 steelhead smolts (342 smolts annually over 2 years of sampling) and 304 juvenile steelhead (152 juvenile steelhead annually over 2 years of sampling) for the purpose of PIT tagging and tissue (gill/ATPase) sampling, capture and release of up to 10 adult steelhead (5 adults annually over 2 years of sampling) for genetic sampling (fin clip), and up to 40 tissue samples (fin clip) from adult steelhead carcasses (20 adult carcasses annually over 2 years of sampling). The unintentional lethal take that may occur as a result of research activities is a total of 9 juvenile steelhead and 16 steelhead smolts. Overall, no intentional lethal take of steelhead is expected in association with any aspect of these research activities. See the permit application for greater details on the study and related methodology.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Issuance of a scientific research permit, and notice of availability for final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
This notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Permit 14868 to Mr. Robert Clark, Assistant Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). In addition, the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact associated with this permit are available to the public.
The approved application for the permit is available on the Applications and Permits for Protected
•
•
•
You may access a copy of Final EA by one of the following:
• Visit the NMFS Reintroduction Web site at
• Call (916) 930-3723 and request to have a CD or hard copy mailed to you.
• Obtain a CD or hard copy by visiting the NMFS Central Valley office at 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Elif Fehm-Sullivan, National Marine Fisheries Service, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916-930-3723).
The issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed fish and wildlife permits.
This notice is relevant to ESA listed species from the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (
NMFS formally initiated a public review period for review of the permit application through publication of a Notice of Receipt (NOR) of the Permit application in the
NMFS formally initiated a public review period for the EA of the permit application through publication of a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Permit application EA in the
Permit 14868 authorizes FWS, under the auspices of the San Joaquin River Restoration Project (SJRRP), to collect, transport, rear, and tag 560 Feather River Fish Hatchery (FRFH) Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, allowing the take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to a bird mitigation research trial.
Effective November 7, 2012, through November 6, 2013.
A copy of the IHA, application, and Environmental Assessment are available by visiting the internet at:
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On April 17, 2012, NMFS received an application from the USFWS requesting an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment, of small numbers of five marine mammal species incidental to a bird mitigation research trial in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. In accordance with the MMPA and implementing regulations, NMFS issued a notice in the
A complete description of the specified activity may be found in NMFS'
Potential gull hazing methods—which include pyrotechnics, air cannons, helicopters, and trained dogs—may incidentally result in the harassment of pinnipeds that haul out on the island. Up to five biologists would be present on the islands to implement the research trial and monitor any pinniped disturbance. Part of the USFWS' goal during this trial is to determine which hazing methods are most effective at (1) deterring birds from roosting on the island and (2) minimizing the impacts to pinnipeds. Therefore, researchers would carefully monitor pinnipeds haul-outs during hazing and adjust the research trial to reduce disturbance. Further details regarding the different gull hazing techniques are provided in HSWAC's IHA application (
The USFWS plans to conduct their research over a 2-4 week period between November 1, 2012 and January 31, 2013. During this time, gull roosts will be visited at least twice a day by researchers for hazing or monitoring. Most visits will last about 15 minutes, although human presence may last for 2-5 hours per day if necessary. Most hazing will take place a few hours before and after sunrise and sunset. Sporadic gull hazing may also occur as needed throughout the day and night.
The research trial will take place in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, a group of islands about 30 miles offshore of San Francisco, California. The refuge was established in 1909 specifically to protect sea birds and pinnipeds and it currently sustains the largest sea bird breeding colony south of Alaska, including 30 percent of California's nesting sea birds. Five pinniped species also breed or haul out on the Farallon Islands. The research trial will be conducted in the South Farallon Islands, which are composed of Southeast Farallon Island, West End Island, Aulon Islets, and Saddle Rock. Most of the gull hazing is expected to occur within Southeast Farallon Island; however, hazing may be implemented around other areas of the island if gulls attempt to roost. The majority of the island's perimeter is considered a potential haul-out for pinnipeds. Species-specific haul-out and pupping sites were provided in NMFS'
For background, sound is a mechanical disturbance consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. For example, 10 dB yields a sound level 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times more intense. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 µPa” and “re: 1 µPa,” respectively. Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1975). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units rather than by peak pressures.
The use of biosonics, pyrotechnics, and zon guns may result in elevated sound levels that exceed NMFS' threshold for in-air harassment. Current NMFS practice regarding in-air exposure of pinnipeds to sound generated from human activity is that the onset of Level B harassment for harbor seals and all other pinnipeds is 90 dB and 100 dB re: 20µPa, respectively. The USFWS intends to use bird hazing methods that cause the least amount of marine mammal harassment, while still preventing birds from settling on the island. Biosonics, pyrotechnics, and zon guns will be initially used at distances to avoid the onset of Level B harassment. Only if bird hazing methods are still unsuccessful from distant locations will these techniques be used closer to pinniped haul-outs.
A notice of proposed IHA and request for public comment was published on
The following marine mammal species may be present in the project area during the research trial: Northern elephant seals (
Variable numbers of northern elephant seals, harbor seals, Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and northern fur seals typically haul out around the perimeter of South Farallon Island. Pinnipeds likely to be affected by the bird mitigation trial are those that are hauled out on land at or near the location of gull hazing. Incidental harassment may result if hauled out animals are disturbed by elevated sound levels or the presence of lasers, spotlights, humans, helicopters, or dogs. Although pinnipeds would not be deliberately approached by researchers, approach may be unavoidable if pinnipeds are hauled out in the immediate vicinity of roosting birds. Disturbance may result in behavioral reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert (e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not necessarily consider the lesser reactions to constitute Level B behavioral harassment, but does assume that pinnipeds that move greater than one meter or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the gull hazing methods are behaviorally harassed.
Typically, even those reactions constituting Level B harassment would result at most in temporary, short-term disturbance. Due to the limited duration of the research trial (maximum 4 weeks of periodic daily hazing methods), disturbance of pinnipeds will only last for short periods of time and will not occur continuously over the 4-week period. Pinnipeds are unlikely to incur significant impacts to their survival because potential harassment will be sporadic and of low intensity. Although there is a risk of injury or mortality if pinniped pups are crushed during a stampede, the USFWS expects most pups to have left the island before November.
In summary, NMFS believes it highly unlikely that the USFWS' activities will result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds. Any harassment resulting from the bird mitigation research trial is expected to be in the form of Level B behavioral harassment.
The USFWS' activity is not expected to result in the physical alteration of marine mammal habitat. Any impacts resulting from the activity (e.g., short periods of ensonification) will be temporary and no major breeding habitat will be affected. There are no expected impacts to pinniped prey species. Critical habitat has been defined for Steller sea lions as a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haul-outs and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones, which includes Southeast Farallon Island. Overall, the activity is not expected to cause significant impacts on habitats used by the marine mammal species in the project area or on the food sources that they utilize.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. The following measures are required in the USFWS' authorization:
The USFWS will conduct the bird mitigation research trial at a time when there are fewer birds on the island and outside of pinniped pupping season. The research schedule will greatly reduce the possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality to pinnipeds resulting from pups being crushed during a stampede. Pregnant northern elephant seals begin to arrive on the island in late December and early January. Remaining pups from the previous breeding season typically leave the island by November. While hazing operations are not expected to overlap with the presence of northern elephant seal pups, the USFWS will actively avoid pregnant females and pups during the research trial by having a biologist identify and map where these individuals are located.
The USFWS will place pyrotechnics in locations so as to avoid exceeding the hearing threshold of pinnipeds. Researchers will first use pyrotechnics as far away as possible from haul-out sites and gradually get closer if necessary, while monitoring behavioral reactions of pinnipeds. Researchers will not use pyrotechnics directly over a major haul-out site.
The USFWS will place air cannons in locations so as to avoid exceeding the hearing threshold of pinnipeds. Researchers will use the lowest detonation volume if haul-outs are close, but may experiment with increasing the volume at farther distances. Behavioral response of pinnipeds will be monitored and the air cannon volume will be adjusted at the first sign of large-scale disturbance.
To avoid or minimize pinniped disturbance, helicopter flights in areas near haul-outs will use a slow sequential approach of decreasing altitude in order to habituate marine mammals to the sound.
Any researchers needed to investigate gull roosting areas, conduct hazing, or monitor pinniped responses, will approach haul-outs slowly and cautiously in order to avoid unnecessary disturbance to pinnipeds.
Kites and radio-controlled aircraft will be used sparingly around harbor seals, as they may be more easily spooked than other pinniped species. If a kite or radio-controlled aircraft falls into a haul-out area, then it will either be: (1) Left in place if it could not be retrieved safely or without causing major pinniped disturbance; or (2) retrieved using a slow methodical approach to avoid major pinniped disturbance. Retrieval may also occur at a later time when pinnipeds are either absent or in fewer numbers.
Dogs will be trained to not harass pinnipeds and will have the necessary immunizations and certificates to ensure that no diseases are transmittable. Dogs will be kept at least 30 meters away from pinnipeds to avoid unnecessary harassment.
The USFWS will designate at least one NMFS-approved protected species observer to monitor pinnipeds and record information before, during, and after hazing operations. The observer will be located at the peak of the island's center, which provides visibility of about 70 percent of the island. If hazing operations take place in areas not visible from the island's peak, additional observers will be used to monitor and record information from other locations. Observers will also monitor offshore areas for predators (e.g., white sharks) to avoid harassing pinnipeds when predators are in nearshore waters. Observers will be equipped to stop hazing operations if they result in unexpected pinniped reactions (e.g., stampeding).
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety and practicality of implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the above mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.
The USFWS will designate at least one NMFS-approved protected species observer to monitor pinnipeds and collect information before, during, and after hazing operations. This observer will be located at the peak of the island's center, which provides visibility of about 70 percent of the island. If hazing operations take place in areas not visible from the island's peak, additional observers will be used to monitor and record information from other locations. Before hazing operations begin, observers will record the number and species of animals in the area. During hazing operations, observers will record the species that react to hazing operations, any change in behavior that occurs, the number of animals that flush (or leave their haul-out), and the number of flushing events. More specifically, observers will record pinniped reactions using a 3-point scale where 1 = a reaction not considered harassment (e.g., head raise); 2 = animal moves greater than 1 meter or changes direction, but no flushing occurs; and 3 = flushing occurs. This scale has been used for previous IHAs to record pinniped reactions and the monitoring results will be used by NMFS to assess the intensity of harassment. After the hazing operations, observers will record the number and species of animals remaining in the area. Observers will be in communication with the hazing trial implementation staff in order to relay information on pinniped behavioral responses. Observers will be able to halt hazing activities if they result in unexpected pinniped reactions (e.g., stampeding).
While not a required monitoring measure, if funding and personnel are available, the USFWS will also monitor sound levels of biosonics, pyrotechnics, and zon guns to evaluate the potential exposure levels of pinnipeds to these techniques. If practicable, the USFWS will measure received sound levels at varying distances from the source to determine the distance at which NMFS' in-air thresholds are reached. Results from these measurements will potentially allow the USFWS to determine how far away they need to conduct certain hazing methods.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, the USFWS will immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the USFWS to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The USFWS will not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), the USFWS will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to
In the event that the USFWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Current NMFS practice regarding in-air exposure of pinnipeds to sound generated from human activity is that the onset of Level B harassment for harbor seals and all other pinnipeds is 90 dB and 100 dB re: 20µPa, respectively. These threshold levels are based on monitoring of marine mammal reactions to rocket launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In those studies, not all harbor seals left a haul-out during a launch unless the sound exposure level was 100 dB or above and only short-term effects were detected.
The USFWS estimated take by using the maximum pinniped counts from weekly censuses in November 2006-2011. These numbers represent the highest count ever recorded for each species during the month of November since 2006. November typically has the highest pinniped counts compared to December and January (the period when the activity would take place). These numbers provide the best available information on haul-outs in the action area. The USFWS' proposed take estimates were simply the maximum weekly counts (Northern elephant seal = 328; harbor seal = 81; Steller sea lion = 224; California sea lion = 3,538; Northern fur seal = 109. However, in order to estimate the maximum number of takes over the length of the trial, NMFS multiplied these numbers by four to account for the maximum 4-week trial period. NMFS' take estimates are shown in Table 1.
NMFS believes these take estimates are conservative because the USFWS used maximum counts of hauled out pinnipeds during the months of the activity and these numbers do not take mitigation measures into consideration. Furthermore, NMFS expects many of the same animals to haul out throughout the month; so these take estimates likely overestimate the number of individuals to be harassed during the trial. Researchers will make every effort to minimize the take of pinnipeds (e.g., by using hazing methods at the farthest possible distance from haul-outs); moreover, many pinnipeds do not haul out near typical gull roosts. Frequency of harassment will depend upon the location of gulls and the success of hazing operations. Pinnipeds may be disturbed as much as twice per day for the duration of the 2-4 week trial. Table 1 shows the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during the activity; however, the USFWS' required mitigation measures will likely result in fewer takes.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to, number of anticipated injuries or mortalities (none of which would be authorized here), number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment, and the context in which takes occur.
As described above, marine mammals will not be exposed to activities or sound levels which will result in injury (PTS), serious injury, or mortality. Rather, NMFS expects that some marine mammals may be exposed to elevated sound levels or visual stimuli that will result in Level B behavioral harassment. Marine mammals may avoid the area or temporarily change their behavior (e.g., move towards the water) in response to research presence or elevated sound levels. No impacts to marine mammal reproduction are expected because the activity will not take place during pinniped pupping season.
Required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to lessen the potential impacts to marine mammals (e.g., avoiding pinniped haul-outs). NMFS expects any impacts to pinnipeds to be temporary, Level B behavioral harassment. Marine mammal injury or mortality is unlikely because of the expected sound levels, avoidance of pinniped haul outs, and avoidance of pupping season. The amount of take NMFS authorizes is considered small relative to the estimated stock sizes. Less than two percent of the stock will be harassed for Northern elephant seals, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions; and less than five percent of the stock will be harassed for California sea lions and Northern fur seals. There is no anticipated effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival of affected marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained in this notice, the proposed IHA notice (77 FR 51773, August 27, 2012), and the IHA application, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that the USFWS' research trial may result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
The only marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area is the eastern DPS of Steller sea lion. On April 18, 2012 (77 FR 23209), NMFS published a proposed rule to delist the eastern DPS. A public comment period was open through June 18, 2012. No final determination has been made. Under section 7 of the ESA, the USFWS consulted NMFS on the bird mitigation research trial. NMFS also consulted internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. A Biological
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
Notice of Proposed Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, hereinto referred to as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”), gives notice of the establishment of a Privacy Act System of Records.
Comments must be received no later than December 14, 2012. The new system of records will be effective December 24, 2012, unless the comments received result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-7220.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”), Public Law No. 111-203, Title X, established the CFPB to administer and enforce federal consumer financial law. The new system of records described in this notice “CFPB.022—Market and Consumer Research Records” will maintain records related to the CFPB's monitoring of risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services, including developments in markets for such products or services; and to the CFPB's researching, analyzing, and reporting on consumer financial products or services, consumer awareness and understanding of the costs, risks, and benefits of such products or services, and consumer behavior with respect to such products or services. The CFPB will maintain control over the records covered by this notice.
The report of the new system of records has been submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated November 30, 2000,
The system of records entitled “CFPB.022—Market and Consumer Research Records” is published in its entirety below.
Market and Consumer Research Records.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
Information in the system will contain records that have been collected from: providers of consumer financial products and services, consumer reporting agencies, and debt counselors; service providers to the above; consumers; government entities; and commercial and non-profit entities that compile or otherwise possess data sets obtained from one or more of the above sources.
Records in the system may include without limitation: (1) contact information for the categories of individuals mentioned above (e.g., names, phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, and governmental-issued identification numbers); (2) information collected from consumers as part of surveys, randomized controlled trials, or through other mechanisms; (3) consumer financial transaction data and other information related to consumers' financial statuses; (4) information about the legal relationships between consumers and market participants, such as contracts and dispute records; (5) information about commercial relationships between consumers and other market participants; and (6) information on consumer characteristics collected by market participants or other entities.
Public Law 111-203, Title X, Sections 1013 and 1022 codified at 12 U.S.C. 5493 and 5512.
Records in this system are collected to enable the CFPB to monitor, research, analyze, and report information relevant to the functioning of markets for consumer financial products and services. This system will also enable CFPB to research, analyze, and report on
In most cases, records will not contain personal identifiers. Records with personal identifiers will be used solely for purposes of matching the records with other datasets, which will better enable the CFPB to perform the statutory functions identified above. After the matching is complete, a de-identified copy of the matched dataset will be used for conducting research and analysis. The CFPB will use the personal identifiers after the matching only for the purpose of performing similar matches on future data acquisitions.
These records may be disclosed, consistent with the CFPB Disclosure of Records and Information Rules, promulgated at 12 CFR 1070
(1) Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) the CFPB suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the CFPB has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the CFPB or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the CFPB's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
(2) Another federal or state agency to (a) permit a decision as to access, amendment or correction of records to be made in consultation with or by that agency, or (b) verify the identity of an individual or the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested access to or amendment or correction of records;
(3) To the Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record or a third party on that person's behalf;
(4) Congressional offices in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(5) Contractors, agents, or other authorized individuals performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity on behalf of the CFPB or Federal Government and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities;
(6) The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for its use in providing legal advice to the CFPB or in representing the CFPB in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body, where the use of such information by the DOJ is deemed by the CFPB to be relevant and necessary to the advice or proceeding, and such proceeding names as a party in interest:(a) The CFPB;(b) Any employee of the CFPB in his or her official capacity;(c) Any employee of the CFPB in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or(d) The United States, where the CFPB determines that litigation is likely to affect the CFPB or any of its components;
(7) A court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of an administrative proceeding or judicial proceeding, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses (including expert witnesses) in the course of discovery or other pre-hearing exchanges of information, litigation, or settlement negotiations, where relevant or potentially relevant to a proceeding, or in connection with criminal law proceedings;
(8) A grand jury pursuant either to a federal or state grand jury subpoena, or to a prosecution request that such record be released for the purpose of its introduction to a grand jury, where the subpoena or request has been specifically approved by a court. In those cases where the Federal Government is not a party to the proceeding, records may be disclosed if a subpoena has been signed by a judge;
(9) Appropriate federal, state, local, foreign, tribal, or self-regulatory organizations or agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, implementing, issuing, or carrying out a statute, rule, regulation, order, policy, or license if the information may be relevant to a potential violation of civil or criminal law, rule, regulation, order, policy or license; and
(10) Appropriate federal, state, local, foreign, tribal, or self-regulatory organizations or agencies that partner with the CFPB for research purposes.
Paper and electronic records.
The records may contain personal identifiers for purposes of matching the records with other datasets. After the matching is complete, a de-identified copy of the matched dataset will be used for conducting research and analysis. The CFPB may retain the personal identifiers after the matching, but only for the purpose of performing similar matches on future data acquisitions.
Access to electronic records is restricted to authorized personnel who have been issued non-transferrable access codes and passwords. Other records are maintained in locked file cabinets or rooms with access limited to those personnel whose official duties require access. During matching, identifiable data is solely under the control of a limited number of employees or contractors who are required to uphold confidentiality restrictions of the CFPB. In addition, any contract personnel who have access to the records are required to sign nondisclosure agreements prior to working with the data.
The CFPB will maintain electronic and paper records indefinitely until the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) approves the CFPB's records disposition schedule.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Associate Director, Research Markets and Regulations, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
Individuals seeking notification and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing in Title 12, Chapter 10 of the CFR, “Disclosure of Records and Information.” Address such requests to: Chief Privacy Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
See “Notification Procedures” above.
See “Notification Procedures” above.
Information in this system will be obtained from: providers of consumer financial products and services, consumer reporting agencies, and debt counselors; service providers to the above; consumers; government entities; and commercial and non-profit entities that compile or otherwise possess data sets obtained from one or more of the above sources. In addition, information may be added by CFPB employees and contractors involved in research tasks.
None.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding 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 concerning Integrity of Unit Prices. 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 14, 2012.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0080, Integrity of Unit Prices by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 501-0650 or email
The clause at FAR 52.215-14, Integrity of Unit Prices, requires offerors and contractors under Federal contracts that are to be awarded without adequate price competition to identify in their proposals those supplies which they will not manufacture or to which they will not contribute significant value. The policies included in the FAR are required by 41 U.S.C. 3503 (a)(1)(A)(for the civilian agencies) and 10.U.S.C 2306a(b)(1)(A)(i)(for DOD and NASA). The rule contains no reporting requirements on contracts below the simplified acquisition threshold, construction and architect-engineering services, utility services, service contracts where supplies are not required, commercial items, and contracts for petroleum products.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), ED.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 14, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Programs authorized under Part F, Title III of the HEA: Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation (Part F, Title III HSI STEM and Articulation), Predominantly Black Institutions (Part F PBI), and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (Part F AANAPISI).
Programs authorized under both Parts A and F in Title III of the HEA: American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU) (note that in Part F, the program is referred to as “Tribal Colleges or Universities”); Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNH).
Programs authorized under Title V of the HEA: Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (Title V HSI) and Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA).
Notice inviting applications for designation as an eligible institution for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.
Under the programs for which we are inviting applications for an eligibility designation, institutions of higher education (“IHEs” or “institutions”) are eligible to apply for grants if they meet specific statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements. An IHE that is designated as an eligible institution may receive a waiver of certain non-Federal cost-share requirements under the FSEOG program in Part A, Title IV of the HEA; the FWS program in section 443 of Part C, Title IV of the HEA; the SSS program in section 402D of Part A, Title IV of the HEA; and the UISFL program in section 604 of Part A, Title VI of the HEA. Qualified institutions may receive these waivers even if they are not recipients of grant funds under the Title III or Title V Programs.
To qualify as an eligible institution under the Parts A and F of Title III, HEA programs and Title V, HEA programs listed in this notice, your institution must satisfy several criteria. For most of these programs, this includes criteria that relate to needy student enrollment and to average educational and general (E&G) expenditures for a specified base year. The most recent data available for E&G expenditures are for base year 2010-2011. In order to award FY 2013 grants in a timely manner, we will use these data to evaluate eligibility. Therefore, in completing your eligibility application, please use E&G expenditure data from the base year 2010-2011.
If you are designated as an eligible institution and you do not receive a new award under the Title III or Title V Programs in FY 2013, your eligibility for the non-Federal cost-share waiver under the FSEOG, FWS, SSS, and UISFL programs is valid for five consecutive years. You will not need to reapply for eligibility until 2018, unless you wish to apply for a new Title III or Title V grant. All institutions interested in applying for a new FY 2013 Title III or Title V grant or requesting a waiver of the non-Federal cost share, must apply for eligibility designation in FY 2013. Under the HEA, any IHE interested in applying for a grant under any of these programs must first be designated as an
The eligibility requirements for the Part F of Title III, HEA programs are in the statute. We are in the process of developing regulations for these programs; there are currently no specific program regulations.
The eligibility requirements for the Title V HSI Program are in Part A of Title V of the HEA and 34 CFR 606.2 through 34 CFR 606.5. The regulations may be accessed at the following Web site:
The requirements for the PPOHA Program are in Part B of Title V of the HEA and the notice of final requirements published in the
To qualify under this latter criterion, an institution's Federal Pell Grant percentage for base year 2010-2011 must be more than the median for its category of comparable institutions provided in the 2010-2011 Median Pell Grant and Average E&G Expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) Student Table in this notice.
For the Part A PBI Program, see section 318(b)(2) of the HEA and for the Part F PBI program see section 371(c)(9) for the definition of “Enrollment of Needy Students.”
An institution's average E&G expenditures are the total amount it expended during the base year for instruction, research, public service, academic support including library expenditures, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance, scholarships and fellowships, and mandatory transfers that the institution is required to pay by law.
The following table identifies the relevant median Federal Pell Grant percentages for the base year 2010-2011 and the relevant average E&G expenditures per FTE student for the base year 2010-2011 for the four categories of comparable institutions:
IHEs requesting a waiver of the needy student enrollment requirement or the average E&G expenditures requirement must include in their application detailed information supporting the waiver request, as described in the instructions for completing the application.
The regulations governing the Secretary's authority to waive the needy student requirement, 34 CFR 606.3(b)(2) and (3) and 607.3(b)(2) and (3), refer to “low-income” students or families. The regulations at 34 CFR 606.3(c) and 607.3(c) define “low-income” as an amount that does not exceed 150 percent of the amount equal to the poverty level, as established by the U.S. Census Bureau.
For the purposes of this waiver provision, the following table sets forth the low-income levels for the various sizes of families:
The 2010 annual low-income levels are being used because those are the amounts that apply to the family income reported by students enrolled for the fall 2010 semester. For family units with more than eight members, add the following amount for each additional family member: 5,940 for the contiguous 48 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying jurisdictions; 7,425 for Alaska; and 6,825 for Hawaii.
The figures shown under family income represent amounts equal to 150 percent of the family income levels established by the U.S. Census Bureau for determining poverty status. The poverty guidelines were published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the
The information about “metropolitan statistical areas” referenced in 34 CFR 606.3(b)(4) and 607.3(b)(4) may beobtained at
To enter the Web site, you must use your institution's unique 8-digit identifier, i.e., your Office of Postsecondary Education Identification Number (OPE ID
Number). Your business office or student financial aid office should have the OPE ID Number. If not, contact the Department using the email addresses of the contact persons listed in this notice under
If your institution is unable to meet the needy student enrollment requirement or the average E&G expenditure requirement and wishes to request a waiver of one or both of these requirements, you must complete your designation application form electronically and transmit your waiver request narrative document from the following Web site:
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload documents to the Web site;
• 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: Dr. Nancy Regan, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., room 6032, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Fax: (202) 219-7018.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
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.
There are no program-specific regulations for the Part A AANAPISI, Part A NASNTI, and Part A PBI programs or any of the Part F, Title III programs. Also, there have been amendments to the HEA since we last issued regulations for the programs established under Titles III and V of the statute.
Accordingly, we encourage each potential applicant to read the applicable sections of the HEA in order to fully understand the eligibility requirements for the program for which they are applying. Please note we are in the process of amending the Title III and Title V regulations. These updated regulations will include regulations for Part A AANAPISI, Part A NASNTI, and Part A PBI programs, as well as the Part F, Title III programs.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
You can contact these individuals at the following email addresses or phone numbers:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audio tape, or compact disc) on request to one of the contact persons listed in this section.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, December 3, 2012; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Kristen G. Ellis, Designated Federal Officer, EMAB (EM-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone (202) 586-5810; fax (202) 586-0293 or email:
Tentative Agenda Topics:
• EM Update
• Updates on EMAB Fiscal Year 2012 Work Plan Assignments
• Tank Waste Strategy Update
• Acquisition and Project Management Subcommittee Interim Report
• Risk Subcommittee Interim Report
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of partially-closed meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a partially-closed meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2.
November 30, 2012, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC (in the Lecture Room).
Information regarding the meeting agenda, time, location, and how to register for the meeting is available on the PCAST Web site at:
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the Nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at
The public comment period for this meeting will take place on November 30, 2012 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at
Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, December 6, 2012; 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Bob Rova, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (301) 903-9096; email:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Porter-Walker LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 27, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
November 15, 2012. 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
* Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public
Southwestern Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Rate Order Approving an Extension of Power Rate on an Interim Basis.
The Deputy Secretary of Energy has approved and placed into effect on an interim basis Rate Order No. SWPA-65.
The effective period for the rate schedule specified in Rate Order No. SWPA-65 is October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013.
Mr. James K. McDonald, Assistant Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, Department of Energy, Williams Center Tower I, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, (918) 595-6690,
Rate Order No. SWPA-65, which has been approved and placed into effect on an interim basis, extends the existing power rate for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project (Rayburn), Rate Schedule SRD-08, Wholesale Rates for Hydro Power and Energy Sold to Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc., for a period of one year, through September 30, 2013.
The existing rate schedule for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project was confirmed and approved on a final basis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the FERC Docket No. EF09-4021-000 (126 FERC ¶ 62244), issued March 30, 2009, for the period January 1, 2009, through September 30, 2012. However, the current rate schedule will expire September 30, 2012. The Deputy Secretary of Energy is extending the project rate schedule through September 30, 2013.
Following Department of Energy guidelines, Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) prepared a 2012 Current Power Repayment Study using the existing Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate schedule and a Revised Power Repayment Study which indicated the need for an increase in annual revenues of $193,896, or 4.9 percent, to meet repayment criteria. Southwestern's Administrator deferred a rate increase because the Administrator deemed it was in the best interest of the Government to do so as a result of benefits obtained by such a deferral, including reduced federal rate case expense and rate stability. The Deputy Secretary has determined, pursuant to the authority of 10 CFR 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), to adopt a one-year interim extension of the Sam Rayburn Project Power Rate. The extension is required because the current rate expires September 30, 2012. Southwestern will reevaluate the ability of the existing rate to provide sufficient revenues to satisfy costs projected in the FY 2013 Power Repayment Studies.
Pursuant to the authority of Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 903), Sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), the Deputy Secretary of Energy may extend a FERC-approved rate on an interim basis. The Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, has followed Title 10, Part 903 Subpart A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions” in connection with the proposed rate extension. On August 21, 2012, Southwestern published notice in the
Following review of Southwestern's proposal within the Department of Energy and pursuant to authorities granted in Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 903), Sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), Rate Order No. SWPA-65, which extends the existing Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate schedule for one year through September 30, 2013, is approved.
Pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Administrator of Southwestern the authority to develop power and transmission rates, delegated to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on an interim basis and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. This rate extension is issued by the Deputy Secretary pursuant to the Delegation Order No. 00-037.00 and the authority to extend rates, previously confirmed and approved by FERC, on an interim basis, pursuant to Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 903), Sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3).
The Sam Rayburn Dam (Rayburn) is located on the Angelina River in the State of Texas in the Neches River Basin. Since the beginning of its operation in 1965, it has been marketed as an isolated project, under contract with Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SRDEC) (Contract No. DE-PM75-92SW00215). SRDEC is comprised of two separate entities, the Sam Rayburn G&T, and the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency.
In the FERC Docket No. EF09-4021-000 (126 FERC ¶ 62244), issued March 30, 2009, for the period January 1, 2009, through September 30, 2012, the FERC confirmed and approved the current annual Rayburn rate of $3,949,872. However, the current rate schedule will expire September 30, 2012. The Deputy Secretary of Energy is extending the project rate schedule through September 30, 2013.
Following Department of Energy guidelines, Southwestern prepared a 2012 Current Power Repayment Study using the existing Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate schedule. The study shows the cumulative amortization through FY 2011 at $24,993,504 on a total investment of $30,254,778. The FY 2012 Revised Power Repayment Study indicates the need for an increase in annual revenues of $193,896, or 4.9 percent, to meet repayment criteria.
Southwestern deferred the indicated rate adjustment because it fell within Southwestern's plus-or-minus five percent isolated project rate adjustment threshold and proposed extending the current rate through September 30, 2013. The threshold was developed to add efficiency to the process of maintaining adequate rates and is consistent with cost recovery criteria within DOE Order Number RA 6120.2 regarding rate adjustment plans. The extension is required because the current rate expires September 30, 2012. Southwestern will reevaluate the ability of the existing rate to provide sufficient revenues to satisfy costs projected in the FY 2013 Power Repayment Studies.
Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions,” has been followed in connection with the rate extension. Opportunities for public review and comment during a 30-day period on the proposed Rayburn power rate extension were announced by a
Upon conclusion of the comment period in September 2012, Southwestern finalized the rate schedule extension for the annual rate of $3,949,872 to be extended for one year through September 30, 2013. This rate extension will allow the FY 2013 Power Repayment Studies to evaluate the ability of the existing rate to provide sufficient revenues to accomplish repayment in the required number of years.
Southwestern received one comment during the public comment period. The comment, on behalf of Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc., expressed no objection to the rate extension through September 30, 2013.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority to extend rates, previously confirmed and approved by FERC, on an interim basis, of Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 903), Sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), I hereby extend on an interim basis, for the period of one year, effective October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013,the current FERC approved Sam Rayburn Dam Project Rate for the sale of power and energy.
Dated: November 7, 2012.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement to address a lawsuit filed by Public Service Company of Oklahoma (“Plaintiff”) in the United States Appeals Court for the Tenth Circuit:
Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by December 14, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0826, online at
Lea Anderson, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-5571; fax number (202) 564-5603;
The proposed settlement agreement would resolve a lawsuit challenging the issuance of EPA's final rule partially approving and partially disapproving Oklahoma's SIP submitted under the “visibility” and “interstate transport” provisions of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, 7491, and 7492. The Final Rule included a FIP establishing BART emission limitations on SO
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the proposed settlement agreement will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0826) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) will hold its sixth meeting. The Next Generation Alerting Working Group, DNSSEC Implementation Practices for ISPs Working Group, Secure BGP Deployment Working Group, and E 9-1-1 Best Practices Working Group will be presenting reports for a vote by the
December 5, 2012.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Jeffery Goldthorp, Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418-1096 (voice) or
The meeting will be held on December 5, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The CSRIC is a federal advisory committee that will provide recommendations to the FCC regarding best practices and actions the FCC can take to ensure the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 19, 2011, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for the CSRIC for a period of two years through March 18, 2013. Working Groups are described in more detail at
The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Federal Election Commission.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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 28, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board
Comments must be submitted on or before January 14, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
1.
2.
3.
Differences between the proposed survey and the 2010 survey are:
1. A more detailed counterparty breakdown for “other financial institutions” for credit default swap reporting would be added to the Outstanding survey to be consistent with the FR 2436. The growth in the credit derivative market has made these data an important component of understanding the structure and activity of the overall over-the-counter derivatives market.
2. The Canadian dollar would be added in tables for foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives on the Outstanding survey to be consistent with the FR 2436 and to align with the BIS global reporting requirements.
3. An additional 18 currency pairs would be added in tables for foreign exchange transactions on the Turnover survey, accompanied by full instrument and counterparty breakdowns. This change would facilitate reporting of currency pairs in carry trade strategies and ensure comprehensive identification of turnover in all participating countries' currencies.
4. A new item “of which non-deliverable” would be added under the total of “outright forwards” for six emerging market currency pairs opposite the U.S. dollar that have significant non-deliverable forward (NDF) volumes, and for the total amount of NDFs included under “outright forwards.” In prior surveys, NDF turnover was captured under “outright forwards.” With some previously non-deliverable currencies now being traded in deliverable forms, this new item will help distinguish between their deliverable and non-deliverable forward turnover. These data will provide insight into turnover in currencies for which there is not a deliverable market offshore due to limitations placed on such activity by local market authorities.
5. The counterparty breakdown would be modified to add more granularity to the “other financial institutions” category for the foreign exchange section of the Turnover survey. Other financial institutions would be split according to their primary business
6. A new item “of which prime brokered” would be added to the foreign exchange section of the Turnover survey to capture deals done via prime brokerage relationships for the reported totals for each instrument and currency pair. This would help assess the extent to which prime brokerage adds to foreign exchange turnover and which instruments and currencies are favored by prime brokerage customers. It will also add some insight to the geographic distribution of prime brokerage activity. Only survey respondents that act as foreign exchange prime brokers will need to report this item.
7. A new item “of which retail driven” would be added to the reported totals for each instrument and currency pair for the foreign exchange section of the Turnover survey. This new item will capture transactions with wholesale financial counterparties that cater to retail investors as well as direct transactions with non-wholesale investors. This would help assess the extent to which retail customers contribute to the turnover between dealers and could provide insight in to the geographic distribution of retail investors and the instrument and currencies preferred by retail investors.
8. The Execution Method schedule on the Turnover survey would be modified to breakdown execution methods for foreign exchange turnover by instrument (spot, forward, swaps, and option) and counterparty (reporting dealers, other financial institutions, and non-financial institutions). The enhanced breakdown of the execution method categories better reflects current market practices and simultaneously disentangles execution methods from counterparty types. Execution would be reported as:
a. Voice-Direct—not intermediated by a third party
b. Voice-Indirect—intermediated by a third party
c. Electronic-Direct—not intermediated by a third party
i. Single bank proprietary trading system (electronic-direct)
ii. Other (electronic-direct) such as: Reuters Conversational Dealing, Bloomberg, etc.
d. Electronic-Indirect—intermediated by a third party electronic platform, i.e., via a matching system
i. Reuters Matching or Electronic Broking Services (EBS)—major electronic trading platforms that are geared towards the interdealer market
ii. Other electronic communication networks (ECNs)—multi-bank dealing systems such as Currenex, FXall, Hotspot, Bloomberg Tradebook, etc.
iii. Other (electronic-indirect)
e. Undistributed—captures the amount of turnover for each instrument and counterparty that fails to be allocated into one of the aforementioned execution method categories.
9. The Turnover survey would add three quantitative questions on “retail driven” transactions asking for estimated percentage shares of transactions with “wholesale” counterparties, “non-wholesale” on-line transactions, and “non-wholesale” voice transactions.
10. The Turnover survey would add three quantitative questions on algorithmic and high frequency trading asking for estimated percentage shares of these types in spot turnover reported with hedge funds and proprietary trading firms for all currency pairs, major currency pairs and non-major currency pairs. This change would allow for estimates of the growth in foreign exchange turnover due to high frequency trading, which has expanded rapidly in recent years. As high frequency trading is a general trading style adoptable by any firm with access to the relevant technology, it is not practical to capture this activity under a single counterparty category.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations for the protection of privacy, FDA is publishing notice of a Privacy Act system of records entitled, “FDA User Fee System, HHS/FDA,” System Number 09-10-0021. FDA utilizes the User Fee System (UFS) to collect fees pursuant to Federal law and FDA's implementing regulations. The records kept in this system relate to fees assessed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, the Animal Drug User Fee Act, the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, the Mammography Quality Standards Act, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Food Safety Modernization Act, the Biosimilar User Fee Act, the Generic Drug User Fee Act, and other fees assessed by FDA under its Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act authority such as color additive certification fees and export certificate fees. For purposes of this notice, these fees are collectively referred to as user fees.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0911, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
•
•
Lisa Berry, Office of Financial Management,
The UFS is a billing and collections system that maintains information about the individuals, organizations, and companies required to pay user fees. Information maintained in the UFS includes:
• Contact person's name, phone number, fax number, and email address;
• Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) for entity remitters;
• Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) for individual remitters, which is encrypted with only the last four characters visible (in some circumstances individual remitters may use a Social Security Number as the TIN);
• Company name or the Organization name; and
• Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and business address.
The UFS also stores application details as the fee remitter (submitter) creates coversheets to pay user fees. These details include, but are not limited to, the type of application, waiver and exemption status, and Small Business Decision (SBD) Number. When a submitter generates a coversheet the UFS will only print the last four characters of the FEIN/TIN along with the organization name and address.
Additionally, the UFS stores billing details, adjustments to invoices, and payment receipt information including date, mode, and amount of payment.
The Privacy Act allows FDA to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act.
A number of the routine uses listed in the System of Records Notice below are common to systems across the government. These include routine uses allowing disclosure to Federal Agencies as necessary in order to respond to a confirmed or suspected breach of system security or confidentiality (routine use number 1); to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain DOJ advice on producing user fee records in response to a FOIA request (routine use 2); to DOJ when DOJ represents the Agency in litigation (routine use 7); in response to a subpoena issued by a duly empowered Federal Agency (routine use 3); to a court or tribunal when the records are relevant and necessary to a proceeding involving the Agency or an employee (routine use 8); to contractors and others who perform services for the Agency related to the UFS (routine use 9); to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and General Services Administration as needed in the course of records management inspections (routine use 10); and to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in circumstances where system records are captured in an intrusion detection program and made accessible to DHS (routine use 11).
Additional routine uses specific to the UFS allow disclosure to entities as permitted under the Debt Collection Improvement Act (routine use 4); to banks in order to process payment made by credit card (routine use 5); and to Dun and Bradstreet to validate submitter contact information (routine use 6).
09-10-0021.
FDA User Fee System, HHS/FDA.
Unclassified.
This system is located at FDA's Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
This system contains records about individuals and companies that are required to submit user fee payments to the FDA. This includes organizations registered in the UFS, those billed through the system, as well as those submitting applications for review or otherwise assessed fees under the User Fee Program.
Privacy Act notification, access, and amendment rights relative to the UFS are available only to individuals who are the subject of records in this system. User fee record subjects are individuals required to pay a user fee, including individual FOIA requestors and individuals who are sole proprietors of an entity required to pay a user fee. Although records in the system may contain personally identifiable information (PII) related to other individuals, only the specified fee submitters are considered subjects of records in this system.
1. The UFS maintains information about individuals, companies and organizations that pay user fees. This includes: (a) For an entity remitter, a FEIN, and for an individual remitter, a TIN; (b) company or organization name and address; (c) DUNS number; and (d) contact person's name, phone number, Fax number, and email address.
2. The UFS also stores application information collected when the fee remitter (submitter) creates coversheets in order to pay user fees. This information includes the type of application, waiver and exemption status, and SBD number.
3. The UFS stores fee processing information including: Billing details; adjustments to invoices including credit and debit memos; and receipt information including date, mode, and amount of payment.
21 U.S.C. 371, 379, 379e, 379h, 379h-1, 379j, 379j-12, 379j-21, 379j-31, 387s, and 393(d)(2); 42 U.S.C. 263b(r)(1); 5 U.S.C. 301, 552; and 44 U.S.C. 3101.
FDA personnel and any contractors assisting them will use information in the system, on a need-to-know basis, for the following purposes:
1. To assess and collect user fees.
2. To provide an electronic payment and receipt mechanism that is integrated with the U.S. Department of Treasury's
3. To provide Web-based capabilities including transactional inquiries and information on payment status.
4. To facilitate debt collection activities in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the HHS regulations for claims collections (45 CFR Part 30).
Permitted disclosures include those made in accordance with routine uses that are listed in the notice of the system of records. 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3). The Privacy Act defines “routine use” as “with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.” See also FDA's Privacy Act regulations, defining “routine use” as “use outside the Department of Health and Human Services that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected and described in the [System of Records] notice * * *” 21 CFR 21.20(b)(5).
Records in this system that contain information about record subjects and nonsubjects (such as FDA employees who operate the system) may be disclosed to recipients outside HHS in accordance with the following routine uses:
1. Records may be disclosed to appropriate Federal Agencies and Department contractors that have a need to know the information for the purpose of assisting the Department's efforts to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the security or confidentiality of information maintained in this system of records.
2. In the event HHS deems it desirable or necessary, in determining whether particular records are required to be disclosed under the FOIA, disclosure may be made to the DOJ for the purpose of obtaining its advice.
3. Where Federal Agencies having the power to subpoena other Federal Agencies' records, such as the Internal Revenue Service, issue a subpoena to HHS for records in this system of records, HHS will make such records available, provided however, that in each case, HHS determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed to entities as provided for in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134).
5. A record may be disclosed to banks enrolled in the Treasury Credit Card Network to collect a payment or debt when the person has given his/her credit card number for this purpose.
6. UFS submitter data (name, address, DUNS number) may be provided to Dun and Bradstreet for validation for the purpose of maintaining database integrity.
7. Disclosure may be made to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when: (a) The Agency or any component thereof; (b) any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the U.S. Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the Agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records by the DOJ is therefore deemed by the Agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the records.
8. Disclosure may be made to a court or other tribunal, when: (a) The Agency or any component thereof; (b) any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the U.S. Government is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in such proceeding, and by careful review, the Agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the proceeding and the use of such records is therefore deemed by the Agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the records.
9. Disclosure may be made to contractors and other individuals who perform services for the Agency related to this system of records, and who need access to the records in order to perform such services. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
10. Disclosure may be made to NARA and/or the General Services Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
11. Records may become accessible to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cyber security personnel, if captured in an intrusion detection system used by HHS/FDA and DHS pursuant to the DHS Einstein 2 program. Under Einstein 2, DHS uses intrusion detection systems to monitor Internet traffic to and from Federal computer networks to prevent malicious computer code from reaching the networks. According to DHS' Privacy Impact Assessment for Einstein 2 (available on the DHS Cybersecurity privacy Web site,
Records may be maintained in hard copy files and on computer disks, hard drives, file servers, and other types of data storage devices.
Records may be retrieved by computer search using name, address, contact information, system identifiable numbers (party/organization, submitter numbers), DUNS Number, and payment information (for refunds).
1.
2.
3.
UFS records are maintained in accordance with FDA's Records Control Schedule, and with the applicable General Records Schedule (GRS) and disposition schedule approved by NARA. UFS records fall under GRS 20, Items 2a(4) (hard copy input records), 12 and 16 (Output records and reports), and NARA approved citation N1-088-09-11, Items 1.1 (files maintained in the Office of Financial Management), 1.2 (data maintained by FDA Centers), and 1.3.2 (database records).
George Brindza, Division of Systems, FDA Office of Information Management (OIM), 2094 Gaither Rd., rm. 131, Rockville, MD 20850; 301-796-7845.
In accordance with 21 CFR part 21, subpart D, an individual may submit a request to the FDA Privacy Act Coordinator, with a notarized signature, to confirm whether records exist about him or her. Requests should be directed to the FDA Privacy Act Coordinator, Division of Freedom of Information, 12420 Parklawn Dr., ELEM-1036, Rockville, MD 20857. An individual requesting notification via mail should certify in his or her request that he or she is the individual who he or she claims to be and that he or she understands that the knowing and willful request for or acquisition of a
Procedures are the same as above, in Notification Procedures. Requesters should also reasonably specify the record contents being sought. Some records may be exempt from access under 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5), if they are “compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.” If access to requested records is denied, the requester may appeal the denial to the FDA Commissioner. Additional details regarding record access procedures and identity verification requirements appear in 21 CFR part 21, subpart D.
In addition to the procedures described above, requesters should reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction, and provide justifying information showing why the record is not accurate, complete, timely, or relevant. Rules and procedures regarding amendment of Privacy Act records appear in 21 CFR part 21, subpart E.
Information in this system is obtained from many sources, including: (1) Directly from the individual, company or organization that is required to submit user fees to FDA; (2) from materials supplied by the submitter or individual acting on his/her behalf; (3) from FDA Centers such as the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Center for Tobacco Products, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and the Office of Financial Management; and (4) from any other relevant source.
None.
The goal of this research is to continue to obtain data on adolescent health and health behaviors annually for seven years beginning in the 2009-2010 school year from a national probability sample of adolescents. The transition from high school to post high school years is a critical period for changes in adolescent health risk behaviors. This information will enable the improvement of health services and programs for youth. The study will provide needed information about the health of U.S. adolescents and influences on their health.
The study has collected information on adolescent health behaviors and social and environmental contexts for these behaviors annually for three years beginning in the 2009-2010 school year. This study will continue to collect this information for an additional four years beginning in 2013. The health behaviors of participants' friends will also be surveyed at two points in time: when participants are 19 years old and again when they are 21. Self-report of health status, health behaviors, and health attitudes will be collected by online surveys.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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 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.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review AdvisoryCouncil, October 31, 2012, 8:00 a.m. to October 31, 2012, 4:00 p.m., Health and Human ServicesBuilding, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on December 3, 2012, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting locationremains the same. The meeting is open to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, November 29, 2012, 8:00 a.m. to November 30, 2012, 5:00 p.m., Fishers Lane Conference Center, 5635, Fisher Lane, Terrace Level, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the
The meeting location has changed to The Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.),notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.),notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentablematerial, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
OMB's “Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance Program Announcements” (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a statement concerning the official government programs contained in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its announcements the number and title of affected individual programs for the guidance of thepublic. Because the guidance in this notice covers virtually every NIH and Federal researchprogram in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be used, it has been determinednot to be cost effective or in the public interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list wouldlikely require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federalprogram would be included as many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, bothnational and international, have elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individualprogram listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information address above aboutwhether individual programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIHcampus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected beforebeing allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, agovernment-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
OBA will offer those members of the public viewing the meeting via webcast (see link on OBA Meetings Page) the opportunity to submit comments to be read during the scheduled public comment periods. Individuals wishing to submit comments should use the comment form, which will accommodate comments up to 1500 characters, and will be available on the OBA Meetings Page during the meeting. Please submit your comment prior to the start of the public comment period. Please limit your comment to a statement that can be read in one to two minutes. Please include your name and affiliation with your comment.
OBA will read comments into the record during the public comment periods that are specified on the agenda. Please note, while every effort is made to keep the meeting discussions to the times stated on the agenda, it is not unusual for the meeting to run ahead or behind schedule due to changes in the time needed to review a protocol. It is advisable to monitor the webcast to determine when public comments will be read. Comments submitted electronically will follow any comments by individuals attending the meeting in person. Comments will be read in the order received and your name and affiliation will be read with the comment. Please note OBA may not be able to read every comment received in the time allotted for public comment. Comments not read will become part of the public record.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Office of the Secretary is announcing that the Secretarial Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform (the Commission) will hold a public meeting on December 6 and 7, 2012. During the public meeting, the Commission will hear from invited speakers about: management and administration of probate and real estate services administered through compacts and contracts; management and administration of natural resources held in trust; and trust reform, including other trust models and the trust relationship. The meeting will allow the Commission to gain insights and perspectives from members of the public. The Commission will also be hosting a youth outreach session on the evening of December 6, 2012, on the University of Washington campus to meet with young adults and college students on their ideas and recommendations to improve performance and services to trust beneficiaries.
The Commission's public meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. on December 6, and begin at 8 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. on December 7, 2012. Members of the public who wish to attend in person should respond by December 4, 2012, to:
The public meeting will be held at the Double Tree Suites by Hilton Hotel Seattle Airport, 18740 International Boulevard, Seattle, Washington 98188. We encourage you to respond to
The Designated Federal Official, Lizzie Marsters, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Room 6118, Washington, DC 20240; or email to
The Secretarial Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform was established under Secretarial Order No. 3292, dated December 8, 2009. The Commission plays a key role in the Department's ongoing efforts to empower Indian nations and strengthen nation-to-nation relationships.
The Commission will complete a comprehensive evaluation of the Department's management and administration of the trust assets within a two-year period and offer recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how to improve in the future. The Commission will:
(1) Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Department's management and administration of the trust administration system;
(2) Review the Department's provision of services to trust beneficiaries;
(3) Review input from the public, interested parties, and trust beneficiaries, which should involve conducting a number of regional listening sessions;
(4) Consider the nature and scope of necessary audits of the Department's trust administration system;
(5) Recommend options to the Secretary to improve the Department's management and administration of the trust administration system based on information obtained from the Commission's activities, including whether any legislative or regulatory changes are necessary to permanently implement the improvements; and
(6) Consider the provisions of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 providing for the termination of the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding termination.
On Thursday, December 6, 2012, and Friday, December 7, 2012, the Commission will hold a meeting open to the public. The following items will be on the agenda.
• Invocation;
• Welcome, introductions, agenda review;
• Commission operations reports and decisions;
• Commission review and discussion of preliminary recommendations;
• Public observations and comments regarding Commission recommendations;
• Panel session regarding real estate and probate;
• Panel session regarding natural resource assets;
• Status update on settlement;
• Commissioner reflections and insights from the day; and
• Review of action items from the today's discussion.
On the evening of Thursday, December 6, 2012, the Commission will host a youth outreach session from at 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on the University of Washington campus to meet with young adults and college students on their ideas and recommendations to improve performance and services to trust beneficiaries. For additional information please refer to http://www.doi.gov/cobell/commission/index.cfm.
• Invocation;
• Welcome, introductions, agenda review;
• Presentation and discussion from BIA Budget Office;
• Panel session regarding trust reform and administration;
• Public comment regarding Commission discussion thus far;
• Planning for 2013 meetings;
• Commission discussion of insights and conclusions from panel speakers and preliminary discussion of how to integrate ideas into draft recommendations;
• Review action items, meeting accomplishments; and
• Closing blessing, adjourn.
Written comments may be sent to the Designated Federal Official listed in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct activities with the purpose of enhancing the survival of endangered species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits certain activities with respect to endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing such permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by December 14, 2012.
Endangered Species Program Manager, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Colleen Henson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or by telephone (503-231-6131) or fax (503-231-6243).
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittee to conduct activities (including take or interstate commerce) with respect to U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application. Please refer to the appropriate permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by request from the Endangered Species Program Manager at the address listed in the
The applicant requests a recovery permit to remove and reduce to possession (collection of seed pods, seeds, flowers, cuttings, and seedlings)
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and final environmental impact statement (EIS) for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs, Refuges).
You may view or obtain copies of the ROD, the final CCP and final EIS, or other project information by any of the following methods:
Richard Potts, Project Leader, at 406-538-8706 (phone), or Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, 303-236-4317 (phone) or
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend NWRs. We started this process through a notice in the
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend NWRs encompass nearly 1.1 million acres, including Fort Peck Reservoir in north central Montana. The Refuges extend about 125 air miles west from Fort Peck Dam to the western edge at the boundary of the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument. UL Bend NWR lies within Charles M. Russell NWR. In essence, UL Bend NWR is a
In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements, this notice announces the availability of the ROD for the final CCP and final EIS for Charles M. Russell NWR and UL Bend NWR. We completed a thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic considerations associated with our actions. The ROD documents our selection of alternative D, the preferred alternative.
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Charles M. Russell NWR and UL Bend NWR for the next 15 years. Alternative D, as we described in the final EIS/ROD, is the foundation for the CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.
Our final CCP and final EIS (77 FR 26781; May 7, 2012) addressed several issues. To address these, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives: Alternative A—No Action, Alternative B—Wildlife Population Emphasis, Alternative C—Public Use and Economic Use Emphasis, and Alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis.
After consideration of 24,600 comments that we received on the draft CCP and draft EIS and several minor comments we received following the release of the final CCP and final EIS, we have selected alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis. It is the alternative that best meets the purposes of the refuges; the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; the vision and management goals set for the refuge; and also adheres to Service policies and guidelines. It considers the interests and perspectives of many agencies, organization, tribes, and the public. Additionally, it is the environmentally preferred alternative.
Under alternative D and in cooperation with our partners, we would use natural, dynamic, ecological processes, and management activities in a balanced, responsible manner to restore and maintain the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge. Once natural processes are restored, a more passive approach (less human assistance) would be favored. There would be quality wildlife-dependent public uses and experiences. Economic uses would be limited when they are injurious to ecological processes.
In addition to the using any of the methods listed under
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has established the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service established the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area on September 14, 2012, with the donation by Mr. Louis Bacon of an approximately 77,000-acre conservation easement on the Trinchera Ranch in Costilla County, Colorado.
A map depicting the approved boundary and other information regarding the Conservation Area is available on the Internet at
Dr. Mike Dixon, Planning Team Leader,
The Service has established the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area in south-central Colorado and far northern New Mexico, including portions of Costilla County, Colorado, and Taos County, New Mexico. The Service will conserve wildlife resources in the conservation area, primarily through the purchase of perpetual easements from willing sellers. These easements will connect and expand existing lands under conservation protection to the north and south of the conservation area.
The area's history of largely low-intensity agriculture is one of the key components to ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife resource protection. Based on anticipated levels of landowner participation, objectives for the conservation area are to protect 250,000 acres of habitat for Federal trust species. The conservation area is a landscape-scale effort to conserve populations of priority species in an approximately 1-million-acre region in the central Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the largest completely privately owned region of the southern Rocky Mountains. The prioritization for land protection will incorporate the elements of strategic habitat conservation (SHC) to ensure effective conservation. SHC entails strategic biological planning and conservation design, integrated conservation delivery, monitoring, and research at ecoregional scales.
This conservation area allows the Service to purchase conservation easements using the acquisition authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-j) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-r). The Federal money used to acquire conservation easements is from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11; funds received under this act are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal property), and the sale of Federal Duck Stamps [Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452)]. Additional funding to acquire lands, water, or interests for fish and wildlife conservation purposes could be identified by Congress or donated by nonprofit organizations. The purchase of easements from willing sellers will be subject to available money.
The Service has involved the public, agencies, partners, and legislators throughout the planning process for the easement program. At the beginning of the planning process, the Service initiated public involvement for the proposal to protect habitats through acquisition of conservation easements for management as part of the Refuge System. The Service spent time discussing the proposed project with landowners; conservation organizations; Federal, State, and county governments; tribes; and other interested groups and individuals. Scoping meetings were held on March 29, 30, and 31, 2011, in Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Moffatt, respectively. These meetings were announced in local and regional media.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), the Service prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that evaluated two alternatives and their potential impacts on the project area. The Service released the draft environmental assessment (EA) and LPP on May 9, 2012, for a 30-day public review period. The draft documents were made available to Federal elected officials and agencies, State elected officials and agencies, 17 Native American tribes with aboriginal or tribal interests, local media, and other members of the public that were identified during the scoping process.
In addition, the Service held three public meetings on May 14, 15, and 16, 2012, at Alamosa, San Luis, and Moffatt, CO, respectively. These meetings were announced in advance in local and regional media. Approximately 50 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives attended the meetings. The Service received 14 letters from agencies, organizations, and members of the public. After all comments were received, they were reviewed, added to the administrative record, and, if substantial, incorporated into the environmental assessment (EA).
Based on the documentation contained in the environmental assessment (EA), a Finding of No Significant Impact was signed on August 1, 2012, for the establishment of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of Meeting.
The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will meet on December 3, 2012, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. The meeting will be held via web conference and teleconference.
The NGAC, which is composed of representatives from governmental, private sector, non-profit, and academic organizations, has been established to advise the Chair of the Federal Geographic Data Committee on management of Federal geospatial programs, the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the implementation of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16. Topics to be addressed at the meeting include:
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance. Please register by contacting Arista Maher at the Federal Geographic Data Committee (703-648-6283,
The meeting will include an opportunity for public comment. Attendees wishing to provide public comment should register by November 28. Please register by contacting Arista Maher at the Federal Geographic Data Committee (703-648-6283,
The meeting will be held on December 3, 2012, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
John Mahoney, U.S. Geological Survey (206-220-4621).
Meetings of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee are open to the public. Additional information about the NGAC and the meeting are available at
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 Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below:
The Southeast Oregon RAC will tentatively hold public meetings January 28-29, 2013, in Lakeview, Oregon, April 22-23, 2013, in Ontario, Oregon, and June 17-18, 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 Southeast Oregon RAC.
Tara Martinak, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738-9424, (541) 573-4519, or email
The Southeast Oregon RAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in southeast Oregon.
Tentative agenda items for the upcoming meetings include but are not limited to: Travel management planning; Cooperative Conservation Agreements (CCA) and CCA's with Assurances; Greater Sage Grouse habitat and conservation; Resource Management Plan amendments; wildfires and stabilization and rehabilitation work; vegetation treatments, management, and planning efforts; wilderness, wilderness study areas, and wilderness characteristics inventories; energy developments on public lands; and, wild horses and wild horse management. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the Southeast Oregon RAC may also be addressed. All meetings are open to the public in their entirety. Information to be distributed to the Southeast Oregon RAC is requested prior to the start of each meeting.
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.
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. 47) granting Complainants' unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on December 23, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois and General Instrument Corporation of Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively “Motorola”). 75
On October 4, 2012, Motorola filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to reflect a corporate name change of Motorola Mobility, Inc. from Motorola Mobility, Inc. to Motorola Mobility LLC. No responses to the motion were received.
On October 10, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the motion. The ALJ found that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)), good cause exists to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) granting the complainant's unopposed motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on the withdrawal of the complaint.
Jia Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. 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 June 13, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation (“Peregrine”) of San Diego, California. 77 FR 35427 (Jun. 13, 2012). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,993; 7,123,898; 7,460,852; 7,796,969; and 7,860,499. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents RF Micro Devices, Inc. of Greensboro, North Carolina; Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois; HTC Corporation of Taiwan; and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively “Respondents”).
On October 11, 2012, complainant Peregrine filed an unopposed motion pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) to terminate the investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint. The motion stated that neither Respondents nor the Commission Investigative Staff oppose the motion. The motion also stated that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties concerning the subject matter of this investigation. The motion requested that the procedural schedule in the investigation be suspended pending a ruling by the Commission on the subject ID.
On October 15, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion terminating the investigation in its entirety and staying the procedural schedule pending the Commission's final determination on the motion. No petitions for review were received.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether termination of the suspended investigations on lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Amy Sherman (202-205-3289), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On November 5, 2012, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The Commission found that both the domestic and respondent interested party group responses to its notice of institution (77 FR 45653, August 1, 2012) were adequate. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy,
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Health Insurance Claim Form,” (Form OWCP-1500) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
Submit comments on or before December 14, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
OWCP and contractor bill payment staff use Form OWCP-1500 to process bills for medical services provided by medical professionals other than medical services provided by hospitals, pharmacies, or certain other medical providers. This information is required to pay health care providers for services rendered to injured employees covered under OWCP-administered programs. Appropriate payment cannot be made without documentation of the medical services provided by the health care provider billing the OWCP. The OWCP uses information obtained to identify the patient and determine benefit eligibility. The OWCP also uses the information to decide whether services and supplies received are covered by OWCP programs and to assure that proper payment is made.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Frances Teel, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 20546,
The NASA Summer of Innovation (SoI) Project FY2013 will engage and support external partners in the delivery of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) opportunities to youth in underrepresented populations through a summer camp/summer learning program. The intent is to increase interest and participation in STEM. The NASA SoI FY2013 project will focus on rising 6th through 8th grade students. This clearance request pertains to the administration of parent surveys, youth surveys, and teacher focus groups. The data collected will enable NASA to (1) evaluate the program model for improvement opportunities, and (2) collect outcome data to assess the program model's effectiveness in meeting the intended objectives. Surveys are designed to obtain the minimum information required to meet study objectives.
Electronic and paper.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before December 14, 2012. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Management Services (ACNR) using one of the following means:
Margaret Hawkins, Director, Records Management Services (ACNR), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-1799. Email:
Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless specified otherwise. An item in a schedule is media neutral when the disposition instructions may be applied to records regardless of the medium in which the records are created and maintained. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by
Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.
1. Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency (N1-565-12-1, 30 items, 25 temporary items). Comprehensive schedule covering various administrative records relating to policy, legal affairs, environmental safety, buildings, and publicity. Proposed for permanent retention are records relating to policies and procedures, executive correspondence, legal opinions, major building projects, environmental compliance, and news releases.
2. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary (DAA-0468-2012-0005, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Records of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, including records documenting the office's participation in public health and medical response efforts to small-scale disasters and interagency emergency programs led by other agencies. Proposed for permanent retention are case files for public health and medical response efforts to historically significant disasters and crises, including logs, reports, orders, and plans.
3. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary (DAA-0468-2012-0006, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Records of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, including records that document the definitive medical response efforts for small-scale disasters. Proposed for permanent retention are historically significant definitive disaster reports.
4. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (DAA-0060-2011-0023, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track workflow for processing grant applications.
5. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2012-0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files and documentation of an electronic information system used to maintain information relating to frivolous tax returns and penalties.
6. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2012-0008, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files and documentation of an electronic information system used to analyze and reduce security risks for internal information technology systems.
7. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (DAA-0412-2013-0001, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to security management, including the physical protection of personnel, assets, and facilities, but not activities related to securing data and information systems scheduled separately.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of Meeting.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that fifteen meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending times are approximate):
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by December 14, 2012. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Chad Whiteman, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0039), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be emailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, 301-415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0275 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Carl F. Lyon, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2296; email:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Union Electric Co., (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated June 30, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111820367), as supplemented by letter dated September 10, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML1225A040), for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30 for the Callaway
The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.6, “Containment Spray and Cooling Systems.” Specifically, the amendment would have revised Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.6.3 for verifying the minimum required containment cooling train cooling water flow rate. Rather than require verifying each containment cooling train has a cooling water flow rate greater than or equal to 2200 gallons per minute, TS SR 3.6.6.3 would have been revised to require verification that the flow rate is capable of being “within limits” for achieving the heat removal rate assumed in the Callaway Plant safety analyses.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 30, 2011, the supplement dated September 10, 2012, and the license's letter dated October 26, 2012, which withdrew the application for license amendment.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of November 12, 19, 26, December 3, 10, 17, 2012.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 12, 2012.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 19, 2012.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 10, 2012.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 17, 2012.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301-415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301-415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Bill Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits Branch, at 301-415-6200, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by email at
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from September 1, 2012, to September 30, 2012.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Executive Resources and Employee Development, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No schedule A authorities to report during September 2012.
No schedule B authorities to report during September 2012.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during September 2012.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during September 2012.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 48 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing,
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-16 and CP2013-15 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 48 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than November 15, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-16 and CP2013-15 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than November 15, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 26 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
• Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, authorizing the new product;
• Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
• Attachment C—proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list with the addition underlined;
• Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
• Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
• Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and related financial information under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Dennis R. Nicoski, Manager, Field Sales Strategy and Contracts, asserts that the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to covering institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the related contract, under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-15 and CP2013-14 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 26 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than November 15, 2012. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web Site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2013-15 and CP2013-14 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than November 15, 2012.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Schedule 14D-1F (17 CFR 240.14d-102) is a form that may be used by any person making a cash tender or exchange offer (the “bidder”) for securities of any issuer, incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada or any Canadian province or territory, that is a foreign private issuer and less than 40% of the outstanding class securities of such issuer's that is the subject of the offer is held by U.S. holders. Schedule 14D-1F is designed to facilitate cross-border transactions in securities of Canadian issuers. The information required to be filed with the Commission provides security holders with material information regarding the bidder as well as the transaction so that they may make informed investment decisions. The information provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon request. Schedule 14D-1F takes approximately 2 hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 5 respondents annually for a total reporting burden of 10 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form T-4 (17 CFR 269.4) is a form used by an issuer to apply for an exemption under Section 304(c) (15 U.S.C. 77ddd(c)) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form T-3 (17 CFR 269.3) is an application for qualification of an indenture under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form T-2 (17 CFR 269.2) is a statement of eligibility of an individual trustee under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. The information is used to determine whether the individual is qualified to serve as a trustee under the indenture. Form T-2 is filed on occasion. The information required by Form T-2 is mandatory. This information is publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-2 takes approximately 9 hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 36 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 9 hours per response (2 hours) is prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form T-1 (17 CFR 269.1) is a statement of eligibility and qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form F-80 (17 CFR 239.41) is a registration form used by large, publicly-traded Canadian issuers to register securities that will be offered in a business combination, exchange offer or other reorganization requiring the vote of shareholders of the participating companies. The information collected is intended to make available material information upon which shareholders and investors can make informed voting and investment decisions. The information provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon request. Form F-80 takes approximately 2 hours per response and is filed by approximately 4 issuers for a total annual burden of 8 hours. The estimated burden of 2 hours per response was based upon the amount of time necessary to compile the registration statement using the existing Canadian prospectus plus any additional information required by the Commission.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 18 (17 CFR 249.218) is a registration form used for by a foreign government or political subdivision to register securities for listing on a U.S. exchange. The information collected is intended to ensure that the information required by the Commission to be filed permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability of the information. The information provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon request. Form 18 takes approximately 8 hours per response and is filed by approximately 5 respondents for a total of 40 annual burden hours. It is estimated that 100% of the total reporting burden is prepared by the company.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
On September 4, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17.2 (Complaint and Investigation) to address the furnishing of data to the Exchange by a Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) in connection with a regulatory review conducted by the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add Interpretations and Policies .04, which provides that “[i]n addition to the existing obligation under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records, each TPH or TPH organization shall furnish upon request, in the manner and standard electronic format prescribed by the Exchange, data concerning orders, transactions, and positions, including related hedges and offsets, in relation to a regulatory review conducted by the Exchange.”
In the Notice, the Exchange stated that it currently requests and receives certain trade data from TPHs and TPH organizations on an ad hoc basis in connection with its regulatory responsibilities as a registered exchange. TPHs and TPH organizations provide such data to the Exchange in a variety of different manners and formats, and sometimes in a piecemeal manner.
In the Notice, the Exchange represented that this change would allow the Exchange to develop uniform procedures and forms for the submission of data concerning orders, transactions, and positions, including related hedges and offsets.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission believes that CBOE's proposed rule change is designed to facilitate the production of uniform data by TPHs, which will permit the Exchange's regulatory staff to make use of the data more readily than is currently the case. In particular, Exchange staff will no longer have to take time to reconcile data that is submitted in disparate formats. In turn, this should benefit the Exchange's regulatory reviews by permitting more efficient use of Exchange resources. To this extent, the rule change is designed to help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, consistent with the Act, because obtaining data from TPHs in a uniform format will aid the Exchange's regulatory staff in the exercise of its regulatory authority. New Interpretations and Policies .04 should help facilitate the Exchange's decision making regarding determining causes of action and considering the appropriate regulatory response to a complaint or investigation, which will further the Act's goal of promoting just and equitable principles of trade.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to increase its Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) and to revise the circumstances under which the Exchange will collect the ORF. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to increase its ORF and to revise the circumstances under which the Exchange will collect the ORF.
The ORF, which is currently $0.004 per contract, is assessed by the Exchange on each OTP Holder or OTP Firm for all options transactions executed or cleared by the OTP Holder or OTP Firm that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range, i.e., transactions that clear in the customer account of the OTP Holder's or OTP Firm's clearing firm at OCC, regardless of the marketplace of execution.
The dues and fees paid by OTP Holders and OTP Firms go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation. In particular, the ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of OTP Holder and OTP Firms, including performing routine surveillance and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF so that, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, it does not exceed regulatory costs. The ORF is collected indirectly from OTP Holders and OTP Firms through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to (1) increase the ORF from $0.004 per contract to
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to revise the manner in which it assesses the ORF. Currently, upon becoming an OTP Holder or OTP Firm, a participant immediately becomes liable for the ORF. In certain instances, particularly at the outset of becoming an OTP Holder or OTP Firm, a participant may be registered with the Exchange prior to obtaining the requisite technological certification needed to act as a Floor Broker, Market Maker, Clearing Member or Order Flow Provider. The Exchange believes that it is not equitable to assess the ORF on an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that, prior to initially satisfying certain technology requirements, is not capable of availing itself of the benefits of its status as an OTP Holder or OTP Firm.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues surrounding the ORF and that the Exchange is not aware of any problems that OTP Holders and OTP Firms would have in complying with the proposed change. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes on December 1, 2012.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable because the Exchange's revenue from the collection of the ORF has declined due to a decrease in industry volume, but the Exchange's regulatory expenses have not declined. As described above, through the ORF the Exchange seeks to recover the costs of supervising and regulating OTP Holders and OTP Firms, including performing routine surveillance and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The proposed ORF increase will help to maintain the total revenue collected to offset these regulatory expenses, but would not exceed those regulatory costs. The Exchange further notes that another options exchange has raised its options regulatory fee to $0.0065 per contract, so the Exchange's proposed ORF of $0.005 per contract will still be below that level.
The Exchange believes that the proposed ORF increase is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to all OTP Holder and OTP Firms on all of their transactions that clear in the customer range at OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it results in fees being charged to those OTP Holder and OTP Firms that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. In this regard, regulating customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity. Surveillance and regulation of non-customer trading activity generally tends to be more automated and less labor intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are anticipated to be higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer component of its regulatory program. As such, the Exchange proposes to continue to assess the ORF to those OTP Holder and OTP Firms that will require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct.
The Exchange believes that the ORF will continue to be equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee increase is objectively allocated to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms. The only OTP Holders or OTP Firms that would not pay the fee will be those that have not yet achieved the technical certifications that are needed to actually begin acting as a Floor Broker, Market Maker, Clearing Member or Order Flow Provider on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this exception is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Not assessing the ORF on an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that is not yet able to act in the capacity for which it is attempting to obtain certification is reasonable because the OTP Holder or OTP Firm is not yet able to generate the revenue associated with serving in that capacity. In this respect, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to not begin charging the ORF until the OTP Holder or OTP Firm can generate the revenue to pay the fee. It is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in an objective manner to all similarly situated OTP Holders and OTP Firms.
As noted above, the Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF so that, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, it does not exceed regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines that regulatory revenues
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to remove dividend spreads from the list of strategy executions for which fee caps apply. Under the Exchange's current Fees Schedule, Market-maker, Clearing Trading Permit Holder, broker-dealer and non-Trading Permit Holder market-maker transaction fees are capped at $1,000 for a number of strategy executions.
One strategy execution listed is a “dividend strategy”, which is defined as transactions done to achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed prior to the date on which the underlying stock goes ex-dividend.
Footnote 11 of the CBOE Fees Schedule states that transaction fees and contract volume resulting from any of the strategies defined in Footnote 13 will not apply towards reaching the Exchange's Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap in all Products Except SPX, SRO, VIX or other Volatility Indexes, OEX or XEO (the “CTPH Fee Cap”) and CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Orders (the “CTPH Sliding Scale”) volume thresholds.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other matter, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problem that the affected market participants would have in complying with the proposed change. The proposed change is to take effect on November 1, 2012.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange is proposing to amend its Fee and Rebate Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) issued pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(a) to implement a monthly FIX Port fee for ETP Holders. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend its Fee Schedule to add a monthly FIX Port fee for ETP Holders of $100 per FIX Port. ETP Holders who participate in the NSX's Order Delivery mode of interaction are required to maintain at least two (2) FIX Ports (one to receive inbound trade notifications and another to send the Exchange order instructions.) To date, the NSX has not charged ETP Holders for FIX Port connections to the Exchange. NSX recently made sizable investments to upgrade computer equipment during a server relocation, including certain hardware technology and FIX Port enhancements. This fee will help recover some cost associated with the upgrade and help maintain the equipment in the future.
The Exchange notes that the amount the port fee is identical to that charged by the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CBSX”).
The Exchange currently intends to implement the proposed FIX Port Fee, which is effective on filing of this proposed rule, operative as of commencement of trading on November 1, 2012. Pursuant to NSX Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will “provide ETP Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees, assessments and charges of the Exchange” through the issuance of a Regulatory Circular of the changes to the Fee Schedule and will post a copy of the rule filing on the Exchange's Web site (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to the delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, orders for a joint back office (“JBO”) account that clear through the Firm range at the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) (these are the only type of JBO orders that are sent into the Exchange) are sent into the Exchange using the same origin code as Firm orders, and are therefore assessed the same fees as Firm orders. Beginning on November 1, 2012, the Exchange is making available a new origin code for such JBO orders.
The proposed change is to take effect on November 1, 2012.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 25, 2012, BOX Options Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “BOX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Currently, Rule 7150(f) permits a PIP to begin at or better than the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”). Further, Rule 7150(f)(1) provides that, at the commencement of the PIP, all quotes and orders on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast that are equal to or better than (i) the Single-Priced Primary Improvement Order price, or (ii) the PIP Start Price of a Max Improvement Primary Improvement Order, except any proprietary quote or order from the Initiating Participant, will be executed immediately against the customer order designated for the PIP (“PIP Order”) in price/time priority.
Rule 7150(f)(4) sets forth exceptions to time priority in the execution of the PIP Order. The Rule currently provides that no order for a non-market maker broker-dealer account of an Options Participant may be executed before all Public Customer order(s), whether an Improvement Order, including a Customer PIP Order (“CPO”), or an Unrelated Order,
The Exchange also proposes to add new Rule 7150(g)(3). New Rule 7150(g)(3) provides that the Primary Improvement Order follows in time priority all quotes and orders on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast that are equal to the (i) Single-Priced Primary Improvement Order price; or (ii) execution price of a Max Improvement Primary Improvement Order that results in the balance of the PIP Order being fully executed, except any proprietary quote or order from the Initiating Participant. Any such proprietary quote or order from the Initiating Participant will not be executed against the PIP Order during or at the conclusion of the PIP.
The Exchange noted that, among the quotes or orders on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast at the final execution price level, the PIP Order will be matched against the best prevailing quotes or orders on BOX (except any pre-PIP Broadcast proprietary quote or order from the Initiating Participant) in accordance with price/time priority, as set forth in Rule 7130.
Under the proposal, Unrelated Orders submitted to BOX will continue to execute as they do currently under Rules 7150(i) and 7150(j). Accordingly, Unrelated Orders received after a PIP Broadcast will execute in time priority after quotes and orders at the same price that were on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast.
The Exchange stated that in connection with this proposed rule change, it will provide to the Commission the following monthly data, and corresponding analysis, related to the PIP:
Further, BOX will provide, for the first and third Wednesday of each month, the: (a) Total number of PIP auctions on that date; (b) number of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was fewer than 50 contracts; (c) number of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was 50 contracts or greater; (d) number of PIP auctions where the number of Participants (excluding the Initiating Participant) was zero, one, two, three, four, etc. Finally, the Exchange will provide information each month with respect to situations in which the PIP is terminated prematurely or a Market Order, Limit Order, or BOX-Top Order immediately execute with a PIP Order before the PIP's conclusion. The following information will be provided: (1) The number of times that a Market Order, Limit Order, or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the same side of the market as the PIP Order prematurely terminated the PIP, and (a) the number of times such orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that initiated the PIP that was terminated, and (b) the number of times such orders were entered by a firm (or an affiliate of such firm) that participated in the execution of the PIP Order; (2) for the orders addressed in each of items (1)(a) and (1)(b) above, the percentage of PIP premature terminations due to the receipt, during the PIP, of a Market Order, Limit Order, or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the same side of the market as the PIP Order, and the average amount of price improvement provided to the PIP Order where the PIP is prematurely terminated; (3) the number of times that a Market Order, Limit Order, or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the opposite side of the market as the PIP Order immediately executed against the PIP Order, and (a) the number of times such orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that initiated the PIP, and (b) the number of times such orders were entered by a firm (or an affiliate of such firm) that participated in the execution of the PIP Order; (4) for the orders addressed in each of items (3)(a) and (3)(b) above, the percentage of PIP early executions due to the receipt, during the PIP, of a Market Order, Limit Order, or BOX-Top Order in the same series on the opposite side of the market as the PIP Order; and the average amount of price improvement provided to the PIP Order where the PIP Order is immediately executed; and (5) the average amount of price improvement provided to the PIP Order when the PIP runs for 100 milliseconds.
BOX stated that, upon Commission approval of the proposal and at least one week prior to implementation of the proposed rule change, it will issue an Informational Circular to Options Participants informing them of the proposal's implementation date.
After careful review of the proposal, the comment letter, and the Exchange Response, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
The Commission believes that the proposal is designed to provide additional opportunities for customers to receive price improvement for their PIP Orders. Under the current rule, if an order is submitted to the PIP and there is sufficient quantity on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast to execute the PIP Order at the PIP Start Price, the PIP Order will execute against the BOX Book (assuming it is at the NBBO), and the PIP will never commence.
The Commission received one comment letter from a BOX Options Participant opposing the proposed rule change.
The Exchange responded that, in its view, a customer's entire PIP Order should have the opportunity for competing market participants to provide price improvement to that customer order.
The Commission recognizes the concern regarding the impact of the proposed rule change on the overall incentives for market participants to rest liquidity on the BOX Book. However, as discussed above, the Commission also recognizes the potential benefit from the proposed rule change with respect to customer PIP Orders priced at the NBBO by providing customers with a greater opportunity to receive price improvement on BOX for their PIP Orders by allowing those orders to be exposed to competition in the PIP, before interacting with pre-existing quotes and orders on the BOX Book at the PIP Start Price. In the Commission's view, the Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to balance the potential for customers to receive price improvement in the PIP, rather than to have their orders immediately executed against a pre-existing quote on the BOX Book at the NBBO, with the potential to impact Market Makers' or other market participants' incentives to quote aggressively because they no longer will have the assurance that their quotes at the NBBO will execute against the PIP Order before the PIP begins. Quotes and orders that are on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast will continue to be able to interact with non-PIP order flow during the auction period. In addition, under the proposal, such quotes and orders will have priority to interact with any PIP order flow at the end of the auction period, unless the entire PIP order is price improved. Moreover, Market Makers or other market participants that wish to interact with the PIP Order can do so by submitting their own Improvement Orders into the PIP auction. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The commenter also remarked that the proposal is defective because it would allow a PIP auction to begin at the NBBO rather than requiring at least a penny of price improvement over the BOX BBO.
In addition, the commenter stated its belief that the proposal has the potential to harm retail investors.
The Exchange responded that the proposal promotes transparent competition to ensure that customer orders receive the best price possible.
The Commission believes that these features of the PIP are designed to provide the opportunity for a competitive auction, which benefits customers by giving them the chance for price improvement better than the NBBO and thus the Exchange's proposal should not result in a harmful impact on market efficiency. As discussed above, the proposal is intended to provide increased opportunities for price improvement of customer PIP Orders priced at the NBBO by permitting a PIP to go forward without those quotes and orders on the BOX Book at the PIP start price being executed against the PIP Order before the PIP auction commences. Quotes and orders on the BOX Book prior to a PIP Broadcast will retain their priority at the same price at the conclusion of the PIP (assuming they have not already been executed on the BOX Book). However, as noted above, the Exchange has committed to provide the Commission with monthly data and corresponding analysis related to the PIP, including statistics with respect to the execution of quotes and orders on the BOX Book prior to the start of the PIP.
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act
Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act provides an exception from the general prohibition set forth in Section 11(a)(1) for any transaction for a member's own account, provided that: (i) such member is primarily engaged in the business of underwriting and distributing securities issued by other persons, selling securities to customers, and acting as broker, or any one or more of such activities, and whose gross income normally is derived principally from such business and related activities; and (ii) the transaction is effected in compliance with the rules of the Commission, which, at a minimum, assure that the transaction is not inconsistent with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and yields priority, parity, and precedence in execution to orders for the account of persons who are not members or associated with members of the exchange.
With respect to the PIP, the rules of the Exchange currently prohibit any orders for the accounts of non-Marker Maker Options Participants from being executed prior to the execution of Public Customer Orders, whether an Improvement Order, including a Customer PIP Order, or Unrelated Order, and non-BOX Participant broker-
Rule 11a2-2(T) under the Act,
Rule 11a2-2(T)'s first condition is that the order be executed by an exchange member who is unaffiliated with the member initiating the order. The Commission has stated that the requirement is satisfied when automated exchange facilities, such as the Trading Host, are used, as long as the design of these systems ensures that members do not possess any special or unique trading advantages over non-members in handling their orders after transmitting them to the Exchange.
According to the Exchange, the design of BOX ensures that no Options Participant would enjoy any special control over the timing of execution or special order handling advantages after order transmission to the BOX Book. All orders on the BOX Book are centrally processed and executed automatically by BOX. Orders sent to BOX would be transmitted from remote terminals directly to the system by electronic means. Once an order is submitted to the BOX Book, the order would be executed against another order based on the established matching algorithms for the BOX Book. In addition, as proposed, those quotes and orders on the BOX Book prior to a PIP may trade with the PIP Order, or would execute when orders or quotations on BOX match one another based on price/time priority. The execution would not depend on the Options Participant but rather upon what other orders are entered into BOX at or around the same time as the subject order, what orders are on the BOX Book, or if a PIP is initiated and what responses are received in response to the PIP, and where the order is ranked based on the priority ranking algorithm. At no time following the submission of an order to the BOX Book would an Options Participant be able to acquire control or influence over the result or timing of order execution, including whether it is executed against an order in the PIP. Accordingly, Options Participants could not control or influence the result or timing of orders submitted to the BOX Book, even if such an order were to match with the PIP Order. Based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission believes that the proposal satisfies this requirement of Rule 11a2-2(T).
Second, Rule 11a2-2(T) requires orders for covered accounts be transmitted from off the exchange floor. In the context of other automated trading systems, the Commission has found that the off-floor transmission requirement is met if a covered account order is transmitted from a remote location directly to an exchange's floor by electronic means.
Third, Rule 11a2-2(T) requires that the member not participate in the execution of its order once it has been transmitted to the member performing the execution. The Exchange represents that, at no time following the submission of an order to the BOX Book, would an Options Participant be able to acquire control or influence over the result or timing of order execution, even if its order on the BOX Book may execute with a PIP Order.
Fourth, in the case of a transaction effected for an account with respect to which the initiating member or an associated person thereof exercises investment discretion, neither the initiating member nor any associated person thereof may retain any compensation in connection with effecting the transaction, unless the person authorized to transact business for the account has expressly provided otherwise by written contract referring to Section 11(a) of the Act and Rule 11a2-2(T).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-4087-DR), dated 10/30/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to:U.S. Small Business Administration,Processing And Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/30/2012, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 133698 and for economic injury is 133700.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State ofNew Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated 10/30/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to:U.S. Small Business Administration,Processing And Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of New Jersey, dated 10/30/2012 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York (FEMA-4085-DR), dated 11/03/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/03/2012, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 133748 and for economic injury is 133758.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Rhode Island (FEMA-4089-DR), dated 11/03/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/03/2012, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 133788 and for economic injury is 133798.
U.S. Small Business Administration
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of NEW YORK (FEMA-4085-DR), dated 10/30/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to:U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/30/2012, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 133658 and for economic injury is 133660.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of UTAH (FEMA-4088-DR), dated 11/03/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/03/2012, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13376B and for economic injury is 13377B.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated 10/30/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/30/2012, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 133678 and for economic injury is 133680.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), Dated 10/30/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, Tx 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of New Jersey, dated 10/30/2012 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated 11/05/2012.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/05/2012, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 133808 and for economic injury is 133818.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to January 14, 2013.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3030, Washington, DC 20037, who may be reached on (202) 663-2457 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on November 15, 2012, in the Northeast Alabama Community College Lyceum Auditorium, Lowell Barron Highway at Alabama Highway 35, Rainsville, Alabama. The public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a
Open.
Chairman's Welcome.
Approval of minutes of August 16, 2012, Board Meeting.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice and request for comments; correction.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before December 14, 2012.
Send written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities, including the burden estimate and suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Barbara Snoden, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4834.
The Department recognizes various public benefits that can flow from change-of-gauge services, such as a lowered likelihood of missed connections. However, although change-of-gauge flights can offer valuable consumer benefits, they can be confusing and misleading unless consumers are given reasonable and timely notice that they will be required to change planes during their journey.
Section 41712 of Title 49 of the U.S. code authorizes the Department to decide if a U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier or ticket agent (including travel agents) has engaged in unfair or deceptive practices. Under this authority, the Department has adopted various regulations and policies to prevent unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition. The Department requires as a matter of policy that customers be given notice of aircraft changes for change-of-gauge flights. (See Department Order 89-1-31, page 5.) The Department proposed to adopt the extant regulations, however, because it was not convinced that these rules and policies resulted in effective disclosure all of the time.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the FAA's Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) two year charter has been coordinated and signed by the FAA Administrator. The ATPAC charter is valid for two years and provides a venue to review air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, revision, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures.
October 29, 2012 valid until October 29, 2014.
Mr. Gary Norek, ATPAC Executive Director, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Availability of a Final EA and FONSI/ROD.
The FAA has issued the final EA final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Aberdeen Regional Airport Updates and FONSI/ROD for the proposed decoupling of runways 13/31 and 17/35 and fill on airport wetlands and associated actions for Aberdeen Regional Airport. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, FAA Orders 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” and FAA Order 5050.4B, “NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions”.
The FAA is issuing a final EA for the Aberdeen Regional Airport Updates and FONSVROD that evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed decoupling of Runways13/31 and 17/35 and fill on airport wetlands actions at Aberdeen Regional Airport located in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Based on the analysis contained in the final EA, the FAA has determined the selected alternative has no associated significant impacts to resources identified in accordance with FAA Order I050.IE, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA Order 5054.4B, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. Therefore, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. The proposed decoupling of runways 13/31 and 17/35 and fill on airport wetlands project is needed to enhance the utility and safety of the Aberdeen Regional Airport for current and projected levels of aviation by the design aircraft family.
Four alternatives were studied for meeting the purpose and need. Three of the four alternatives were reviewed, analyzed, discarded due to the degree of environmental impacts and not meeting purpose and need. A detailed discussion is in the V. Alternatives Discarded Section of the FONSVROD. The selected alternative is one of four considered in the final EA. The selected alternative consists of addressing the identified needs: Incompatible land use, non-standard runway configuration, and hazardous wildlife habitat.
The selected alternative includes the:
(I.) Unconditional approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the development listed in the EA and the decision document. (2.) Issue final airspace determinations for the development listed on the ALP. (3.) Eligibility for Federal grants-in-aid funds for eligible items. (4.) Approval of design and use of air traffic procedures needed to implement the proposed action. (5.) FAA Finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” for the Proposed Action. (6.) FAA findings of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the Topeka shiner and Whooping Crane endangered species. (7.) FAA Finding of “No Impact” to floodplains. (8.) Wetland finding that there is no practicable alternatives to such construction and the proposed action includes all practicable measure to minimize harm to wetlands. (9.) Appropriate permits and mitigation will be needed before disbursing Federal funds. These documents will be available for public review during normal business hours at:
Federal Aviation Administration Bismarck ADO, 2301 University Drive, Bldg. 23B, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504.
Aberdeen Regional Airport, Manager's Office, Terminal Building, E Highway 12, Aberdeen, SD 57401.
Aberdeen City Hall, Engineering Department, 123 S. Lincoln St., Aberdeen, SD 57401.
Alexander Mitchell Library, 519 S. Kline St., Aberdeen, SD 57401.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a proposal to authorize the release of 0.32 acres of airport property (Parcel No. 18) at the J. Douglas Bake Memorial Airport, Oconto, WI.
Parcel No. 18 is located outside of the airport fence along the west edge of the airport and contains a part of a road used to access a land-locked parcel of private property located adjacent to the airport. Using the piece of airport property as an uncontrolled access road has resulted in a non-aeronautical use of
A categorical exclusion for this land release action was prepared by Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation-Bureau of Aeronautics and issued on June 22, 2011.
The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use. The parcel is depicted on the Airport Layout Plan and Exhibit “A” property map dated July 12, 2011. There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to dispose of this parcel.
The subject parcel was originally acquired on September 10, 2002, as part of Airport Improvement Program grant No. 04 and is described in the warranty deed recorded in Volume 933 pages 480-481, Oconto County, Wisconsin. The value of the parcel is $600.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2012.
Mr. Daniel J. Millenacker, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450-2706. Telephone Number (612) 253-4635; FAX Number (612) 253-4611; email address
Mr. Daniel J. Millenacker, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450-2706. Telephone Number (612) 253-4635; FAX Number (612)253-4611; email address
Following is a legal description of the subject airport property to be released at the J. Douglas Bake Memorial Airport in Oconto, Wisconsin:
Part of Government Lot 3, Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 21 East, Town of Oconto, Oconto County, Wisconsin.
Commencing at the North Quarter corner of Section 26; Thence South 87 degrees 35 minutes 26 seconds West, along the north line of section 26, a distance of 1333.25 feet; Thence South 00 degrees 22 minutes 17 seconds West along the west line of Government Lot 3, distance of 685.43 feet to the Point of Beginning. Thence continuing South 00 degrees 22 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 504.34 feet; Thence South 89 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 55.89 feet; Thence North 05 degrees 57 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 507.45 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel containing 0.32 Acres/14,094.3 Square Feet of land more or less.
Said parcel subject to all easements, restrictions, and reservations of record.
The Surface Transportation Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS, a Draft Scope of Study, and a notice of scoping meetings in the above-captioned proceeding on October 22, 2012 and published it in the
The additional meetings will be held at the following location on Friday, November 16, 2012 between 2-4 p.m. and 6-8 p.m.:
Chief Little Wolf Capital Building, Northern Cheyenne Tribal Chambers, 600 South Main Cheyenne Avenue, Lame Deer, MT 59043.
Please include these additional meetings on your copies accordingly. The NOI is available on the Board's Web site at
By the Board.
Surface Transportation Board.
Partial revocation of exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 10502, the Board revokes the class exemption as it pertains to the trackage rights described in Docket No. FD 34554 (Sub-No. 16)
This decision is effective on December 14, 2012. Petitions to stay must be filed by November 26, 2012. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by December 4, 2012.
Send an original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 34554 (Sub-No. 17) to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on UP's representative: Elisa B. Davies, 1400 Douglas Street, Mail Stop 1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
Marc Lerner (202) 245-0390. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Begeman.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing to adopt new regulations and amend existing regulations to require enhanced customer protections, risk management programs, internal monitoring and controls, capital and liquidity standards, customer disclosures, and auditing and examination programs for futures commission merchants (“FCMs”). The proposal also addresses certain related issues concerning derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”) and chief compliance officers (“CCOs”). The proposed rules will afford greater assurances to market participants that: customer segregated funds and secured amounts are protected; customers are provided with appropriate notice of the risks of futures trading and of the FCMs with which they may choose to do business; FCMs are monitoring and managing risks in a robust manner; the capital and liquidity of FCMs are strengthened to safeguard their continued operations; and the auditing and examination programs of the Commission and the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) are monitoring the activities of FCMs in a prudent and thorough manner.
Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AD88, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
The protection of customers—and the safeguarding of money, securities or other property deposited by customers with an FCM—is a fundamental component of the Commission's disclosure and financial responsibility framework. Section 4d(a)(2)
The Commission has adopted §§ 1.20 through 1.30, and § 1.32, to implement section 4d(a)(2) of the Act, and adopted Part 22 to implement section 4d(f) of the Act. The purpose of these regulations is to safeguard funds deposited by futures customers and Cleared Swaps Customers, respectively.
Regulation 1.20 requires each FCM and DCO to separately account for and to segregate from its own proprietary funds all money, securities, or other property deposited by futures customers for trading on designated contract markets. Regulation 1.20 also provides that an FCM or DCO may deposit futures customer funds only with a bank, trust company, and for FCMs only, a DCO or another FCM. The funds must be deposited under an account
FCMs and DCOs also are restricted in their use of futures customer funds. Regulations 1.20 and 1.22 provide that the funds deposited by one futures customer may not be used to margin or to secure the contracts or option positions, or extend credit to any person, other than the futures customer that deposited the funds. An FCM or DCO, however, may for convenience commingle and hold funds deposited as margin by multiple futures customers in the same account or accounts with one of the recognized depositories. An FCM or DCO also may invest futures customer funds in certain permitted investments under § 1.25.
Part 22 of the Commission's regulations, which governs Cleared Swaps transactions, implements section 4d(f) of the Act and parallels many of the provisions in Part1 addressing the manner in which, and the responsibilities imposed upon, an FCM holding funds for futures customers trading on designated contract markets.
Regulation 22.2(d) also prohibits an FCM from using the funds deposited by one Cleared Swaps Customer to purchase, margin, or settle cleared swap transactions of any person other the Cleared Swaps Customer that deposited the funds. Further, § 22.2(c) permits an FCM to commingle the Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral of multiple Cleared Swaps Customers into one or more accounts, and § 22.2(e)(1) permits an FCM to invest Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral in permitted investments under § 1.25.
In addition to holding funds for futures customers transacting on designated contract markets and for Cleared Swaps Customers engaging in cleared swap transactions, FCMs also hold funds for persons trading futures contracts listed on foreign boards of trade. Section 4(b) of the Act provides that the Commission may adopt rules and regulations proscribing fraud and requiring minimum financial standards, the disclosure of risk, the filing of reports, the keeping of books and records, the safeguarding of the funds deposited by persons for trading on foreign markets, and registration with the Commission by any person located in the United States who engages in the offer or sale of any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery that is made subject to the rules of a board of trade located outside of the United States. Pursuant to the statutory authority of section 4(b), the Commission adopted Part 30 of its regulations to address foreign futures and foreign option transactions.
The segregation provisions for funds deposited by foreign futures or foreign options customers to margin foreign futures or foreign options transactions under Part 30, however, are significantly different from the requirements set forth in § 1.20 for futures customers trading on designated contract markets and Part 22 for Cleared Swaps Customers engaging in cleared swap transactions. Regulation 30.7 provides that an FCM may deposit the funds belonging to foreign futures or foreign options customers in an account or accounts maintained at a bank or trust company located in the United States; a bank or trust company located outside of the United States that has in excess of $1 billion of regulatory capital; an FCM registered with the Commission; a DCO; a member of a foreign board of trade; a foreign clearing organization; or a depository selected by the member of a foreign board of trade or foreign clearing organization. The account with the depository must be titled to clearly specify that the account holds funds belonging to the foreign futures or foreign options customers of the FCM that are trading on foreign futures markets. An FCM also is permitted to invest the funds deposited by foreign futures or foreign option customers in accordance with § 1.25.
However, unlike § 1.20 and Part 22, which require an FCM to hold a sufficient amount of funds in segregation to meet the total account equities of all of the FCM's futures customers and Cleared Swaps Customers at all times (
In addition to the segregation requirements of sections 4d(a)(2) and 4d(f) of the Act, and the secured amount requirements in Part 30 of the Commission's regulations, FCMs also are subject to minimum net capital and financial reporting requirements that are intended to ensure that such firms meet their financial obligations in a regulated marketplace, including their financial obligations to customers and DCOs. Each FCM is required to maintain a minimum level of “adjusted net capital,” which is generally defined under § 1.17 as the firm's net equity as computed under generally accepted accounting principles, less all of the firm's liabilities and further excluding all assets that are not liquid or readily marketable. Regulation 1.17(c)(5) further requires an FCM to impose capital charges (
FCMs also are subject to financial recordkeeping and reporting requirements. FCMs that carry customer accounts are required under § 1.32 to prepare a schedule each business day demonstrating their compliance with the segregation and secured amount requirements. Regulation 1.32 requires the calculation to be performed by noon each business day, reflecting the account balances and open positions as of the close of business on the previous business day.
Each FCM also is required by § 1.10 to file with the Commission and with its
The statutory mandate to segregate customer funds—to treat them as belonging to the customer and not use the funds inappropriately—takes on greater meaning in light of the devastating events experienced over the past year. Those events, which are discussed in greater detail below, demonstrate that the risks of misfeasance and malfeasance, and the risks of failing to maintain sufficient excess funds in segregation: (i) Put customer funds at risk; and (ii) are exacerbated by stresses on the business of the FCM. Many of those risks can be mitigated significantly by better risk management systems and controls, along with an increase in risk-oriented oversight and examination of the FCMs.
Determining what is a “sufficient” amount of excess funds in segregation for any particular FCM requires a full understanding of the business of that FCM, including a proper analysis of the factors that affect the actual amount of segregated funds held by the FCM relative to the minimum amount of segregated funds it is required to hold. Further, appropriate care must be taken to avoid withdrawing such excess funds at times of great stress to cover needs unrelated to the purposes for which excess segregated and secured funds are maintained. In times of stress, excess funds may look like an easy liquidity source to help cover other risks of the business; yet withdrawing it makes it unavailable when it may be most needed. The recent market events illustrate both the need to: (i) Require that care be taken about monitoring excess segregated and secured funds, and the conditions under and the extent to which such funds may be withdrawn; and (ii) place appropriate risk management controls around the other risks of the business to help relieve (A) the likelihood of an exigent event or, (B) if such an event occurs, the likelihood of a failure to prepare for such an event, which in either case could create pressures that result in an inappropriate withdrawal of customer funds.
Although the Commission's existing regulations provide an essential foundation to fostering a well-functioning marketplace, wherein customers are protected and institutional risks are minimized, recent events have demonstrated that additional measures are necessary to effectuate the fundamental purposes of the statutory provisions discussed above. Further, concurrently with the enhanced responsibilities for FCMs that are proposed herein, the oversight and examination systems must be enhanced to mitigate risks and effectuate the statutory purposes.
The Commission's oversight structure provides that SROs are the frontline regulators of FCMs, introducing brokers (“IBs”), commodity pool operators, and commodity trading advisors. In 2000, Congress affirmed the Commission's reliance on SROs by amending section 3 of the Commodity Exchange Act to state: “It is the purpose of this Act to serve the public interests through a system of effective self-regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems, market participants and market professionals under the oversight of the Commission.”
As part of its oversight responsibility, an SRO is required to conduct periodic examinations of member FCMs' compliance with Commission and SRO financial and related reporting requirements, including the FCMs' holding of customer funds in segregated and secured accounts. The Commission oversees the SROs by examining them for the performance of their duties. More recently, the Commission has moved to conducting quarterly reviews of the SROs' FCM examination program in which the Commission selects a small sample of the SRO's FCM work papers to review. In addition, the Commission also conducts limited-scope reviews of FCMs in a “for cause” situation that are sometimes referred to as “audits,” but they are not full-scale audits as accountants commonly use that term.
In addition, because there are multiple SROs who share the same member FCMs, to avoid subjecting FCMs to duplicative examinations from SROs, the Commission has a permissive system that allows the SROs to agree how to allocate FCMs amongst them. An SRO who is allocated certain FCMs for such examination is referred to as the DSRO of those FCMs.
Under Commission regulations, FCMs must have their annual financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant following U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (“U.S. GAAS”). As part of this certified annual report, the independent accountant also must conduct appropriate reviews and tests to identify any material inadequacies in systems and controls that could violate the Commission's segregation or secured amount requirements. Any such inadequacies are required to be reported to the FCM's DSRO and to the Commission.
Recent events demonstrate the need for revisions to the Commission's customer protection regime. Since October 2011, two FCMs have entered into insolvency proceedings. On October 31, 2011, MF Global, Inc. (“MFGI”), which was dually-registered as an FCM with the Commission and as a securities broker-dealer (“BD”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), was placed into a liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”). The trustee appointed to oversee the liquidation of MFGI has reported a potential $900 million shortfall of funds necessary to repay the account balances due to customers trading futures on designated contract markets, and an approximately $700 million shortfall in funds immediately available to repay the account balances of customers trading on foreign futures markets.
In addition, the Commission filed a civil injunctive complaint in federal district court on July 10, 2012, against Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. (“PFG”), a registered FCM and its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and sole owner, Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr., alleging that PFG and Wasendorf, Sr. committed fraud by misappropriating customer funds, violated customer fund segregation laws, and made false statements regarding the amount of funds in customer segregated accounts in financial statements filed with the Commission. The complaint states that in July 2012 during an NFA examination PFG falsely represented that it held in excess of $220 million of customer funds when in fact it held approximately $5.1 million.
Recent incidents also have demonstrated the value of establishing robust risk management systems within FCMs and enhanced early warning systems to detect and address capital issues. In particular, problems that arise through an FCM's non-futures-related business can have a direct and significant impact on the FCM's regulatory capital, raising questions as to whether the FCM will be able to maintain the minimum financial requirements mandated by the Act and Commission regulations.
These recent incidents have highlighted weaknesses in the customer protection regime prescribed in the Commission's regulations and through the self-regulatory system. In particular, questions have arisen on the requirements surrounding the holding and investment of customer funds, including the ability of FCMs to withdraw funds from customer segregated accounts and Part 30 secured accounts. Additionally, the incidents have underscored the need for additional safeguards—such as robust risk management systems, strengthened early-warning systems surrounding margin and capital requirements, and enhanced public disclosures—to promote the protection of customer funds and to minimize the systemic risk posed by certain actions of market participants. Further questions have arisen on the system of audits and examinations of FCMs, and whether the system functions adequately to monitor FCMs' activities, verify segregated fund and secured amount balances, and detect fraud. Consequently, the Commission has taken steps to study and address the issues raised by the incidents, and industry participants likewise have taken steps to address the issues. Such steps are described in greater detail in the next section.
Since late 2011, the Commission has promulgated rules directly impacting the protection of customer funds. The Commission also has studied the current regulatory framework surrounding customer protection, particularly in light of the recent incidents outlined above, in order to identify potential enhancements to the systems and Commission regulations protecting customer funds. The Commission's efforts have been informed, in part, by efforts undertaken by industry participants. The proposed rule amendments set forth in this release have been informed by the efforts detailed below.
In December 2011, the Commission adopted final rule amendments revising the types of investments that an FCM or DCO can make with customer funds under § 1.25, for the purpose of affording greater protection for such funds.
In adopted the amendments to § 1.25, the Commission was mindful that customer segregated funds must be invested by FCMs and DCOs in a manner that minimizes their exposure to credit, liquidity, and market risks both to preserve their availability to customers and DCOs, and to enable investments to be quickly converted to cash at a predictable value in order to avoid systemic risk. The amendments are consistent with the general prudential standard contained in § 1.25, which provides that all permitted investments must be “consistent with the objectives of preserving principal and maintaining liquidity.”
The Commission also approved final regulations that require DCOs to collect initial customer margin from FCMs on a gross basis.
The Commission also approved a new margining regime for cleared swaps positions.
The Commission also included customer protection enhancements in the final rule for designated contract markets. These provisions codify into rules staff guidance on minimum requirements for SROs regarding their financial surveillance of FCMs.
In addition to the rulemaking efforts outlined above, the Commission has sought additional information through a series of roundtables and other meetings. On February 29 and March 1, 2012, the Commission solicited comments and held a public roundtable to solicit input on customer protection issues from a broad cross-section of the futures industry, including market participants, FCMs, DCOs, SROs, securities regulators, foreign clearing organizations, and academics.
The Commission also hosted a public meeting of the Technology Advisory Committee (“TAC”) on July 26, 2012.
Commission staff hosted an additional roundtable on August 9, 2012, to discuss SRO requirements for examinations of FCMs and Commission oversight of SRO examination programs. The roundtable also focused on the role of the independent public accountant in the FCM examination process, and proposals addressing various alternatives to the current system for segregating customer funds.
In developing the proposals set forth in this release, the Commission also has been informed by efforts undertaken by industry participants. On February 29, 2012, the Futures Industry Association (“FIA”) initiated steps to educate customers on the extent of the protections provided under the current regulatory structure. FIA issued a list of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) prepared by members of the FIA Law and Compliance Division addressing the basics of segregation, collateral management and investments, capital requirements and other issues for FCMs and joint FCM/BDs, and clearinghouse guaranty funds.
FIA also issued a series of initial recommendations for the protection of customer funds.
On July 13, 2012, the Commission approved new FCM financial requirements proposed by the National Futures Association (“NFA”).
NFA's Segregated Funds Provisions require each FCM to: (1) Maintain written policies and procedures governing the deposit of the FCM's proprietary funds (
Significantly, NFA's Segregated Funds Provisions also require FCMs to compute their Part 30 secured amount requirement and compute their targeted excess Part 30 secured funds using the same Net Liquidating Equity Method that is required by the Act and Commission regulations for computing the segregation requirements for customers trading on U.S. contract markets under section 4d of the Act. FCMs are not permitted under the NFA rules to use the Alternative Method to compute the Part 30 secured amount requirement. The failure of an FCM to maintain its targeted amount of excess Part 30 funds computed using the Net
In addition, in setting the target amount of excess funds, the FCM's management must perform a due diligence inquiry and consider various factors relating, as applicable, to the nature of the FCM's business, including the type and general creditworthiness of the FCM's customers, the trading activity of the customers, the types and volatility of the markets and products traded by the FCM's customers, and the FCM's own liquidity and capital needs. The FCM's Board of Directors (or similar governing body), CEO or Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) must approve in writing the FCM's targeted residual amount, any changes thereto, and any material changes in the FCM's written policies and procedures.
The NFA Board of Directors also approved on August 16, 2012, amendments to NFA financial requirements for FCMs that will require each FCM to provide its DSRO with view-only access via the Internet to account information for each of the FCM's customer segregated funds account(s) maintained and held at a bank or trust company. The same requirement would apply to the FCM's customer secured account(s) held for customers trading on foreign futures exchanges.
In addition, the NFA rule amendments provide that if a bank or trust company is unable to allow the FCM to provide its DSRO with view-only full access via the Internet, the bank or trust company will not be deemed an acceptable depository to hold customer segregated and secured accounts. NFA intends to expand its oversight of FCMs under the amended rules, once the amendments are implemented, to receive daily reports from all depositories for customer segregated and secured accounts, including FCMs that are clearing members of DCOs. NFA plans to develop a program to compare the balances reported by the depositories with the balances reported by the FCMs in their daily segregation reports. An immediate alert would be generated for any material discrepancies.
The incidents outlined above, coupled with the information generated through the recent efforts undertaken by the Commission and industry participants, demonstrate the need for new rules and amendments to existing rules. In particular, an examination of FCM business operations—including the non-futures business of FCMs—and the currently regulatory framework evince a need for enhanced customer protections, risk management programs, disclosure requirements, and auditing and examination programs. The amendments proposed herein address these issues in several ways.
First, recognizing problems surrounding the treatment of customer segregated funds and foreign futures or foreign options secured amounts, the Commission is proposing to amend several components of Parts 1, 22, and 30 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments will provide greater certainty to market participants that the customer funds entrusted to FCMs will be protected. Second, to address shortcomings in the risk management of FCMs, the Commission is proposing a new § 1.11 that will establish robust risk management programs. Third, the Commission determined that the current regulatory framework should be re-oriented to implement a more risk-based, forward-looking perspective, affording the Commission and SROs with read-only access to accounts holding customer funds and additional information on depositories and the customer assets held in such depositories. The proposed amendments to §§ 1.10, 1.12, 1.20, 1.26, and 1.32 address those and other issues. Fourth, given the difficulties that can arise in an FCM's business, and the direct and significant impact on the FCM's regulatory capital that can result from such difficulties, the Commission is proposing to amend § 1.17(a)(4) to ensure that an FCM's capital and liquidity are sufficient to safeguard the continuation of operations at the FCM. Fifth, to effect the change in orientation needed in FCM examinations programs, as well as to assure quality control over program contents, administration and oversight, the Commission is proposing to amend § 1.52, which, among other things, addresses the formation of Joint Audit Committees and the implementation of Joint Audit Programs. And sixth, recognizing the need to increase the information provided to customers concerning the risks of futures trading and the FCMs with which they may choose to conduct business, the Commission is proposing amendments to § 1.55 that will enhance the disclosures provided by FCMs. These amendments are discussed in greater detail in the next Section.
Regulation 1.10 requires each FCM to file with the Commission and with the firm's DSRO an unaudited financial report each month. The financial report must be prepared using Form 1-FR-FCM. An FCM, however, that is dually-registered as a BD, may file a Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“FOCUS Report”) in lieu of the Form 1-FR-FCM. Each FCM also is required to file an annual report certified by an independent public accountant with the Commission and with its DSRO.
The unaudited monthly and certified annual financial reports are required to contain basic financial statements including a statement of financial condition, a statement of income (loss), and a statement of changes in ownership equity. The financial statements also are required to include additional schedules designed to address specific regulatory objectives to demonstrate that the FCM is in compliance with minimum capital and customer funds segregation requirements. These additional schedules include a statement of changes in liabilities subordinated to claims of general creditors, a statement of the computation of the minimum capital requirements (“Capital Computation Schedule”), a statement of segregation requirements and funds in segregation for customers trading on U.S. commodity exchanges (“Segregation Schedule”) and a statement of secured amounts and funds held in separate accounts for foreign futures and foreign options customers (“Secured Amount Schedule”). In addition, the certified annual report must contain a reconciliation of material differences between the Capital Computation Schedule, the Segregation Schedule, and the Secured Amount Schedule contained in the certified annual report and the unaudited monthly report for the FCM's year-end month.
The Forms 1-FR-FCM and the FOCUS Reports are necessary financial reporting for Commission and DSRO staff to assess the ongoing financial condition of an FCM and provide significant information regarding the operations of the firm that may impact the FCM's ability to maintain
The Segregation Schedule and the Secured Amount Schedule generally indicate, respectively, the total amount of funds held by the FCM in segregated or secured accounts, the total amount of funds that the FCM must hold in segregated or secured accounts to meet its regulatory obligations to futures customers and foreign futures or foreign options customers, and whether the firm holds excess segregated or secured funds in the segregated or secured accounts as of the reporting date. The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.10 to require each FCM to also disclose in the Segregation Schedule and in the Secured Amount Schedule
As more fully discussed in Section II.B below, proposed § 1.11 will require each FCM that carries customer funds to determine a necessary level of excess segregated and secured funds that the firm should hold in segregated or secured accounts to ensure against becoming undersegregated or undersecured as a result of the withdrawal of proprietary funds from segregated or secured accounts. Each FCM is required under proposed § 1.11 to compute or determine the necessary target of residual interest based upon appropriate due diligence and consideration of various factors relating to the nature of the FCM's business,
The disclosure of the targeted amount of the FCM's residual interest in segregated or secured accounts will allow the Commission and DSRO to assess the size of the target relative to both the total funds held in segregation or secured accounts and to compare the target to other FCMs. Such information will assist the Commission and DSROs in assessing the potential risk that a firm may become undersegregated or undersecured, and will enhance the Commission's and DSRO's ability to protect customer funds.
The Commission also is proposing to revise Form 1-FR-FCM to adopt a new “Statement of Cleared Swap Customer Segregation Requirements and Funds in Cleared Swap Customer Accounts Under Section 4d(f) of the Act” (“Cleared Swaps Segregation Schedule”). The Commission is proposing the Cleared Swaps Segregation Schedule to implement provisions in section 724(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Commission previously proposed a Cleared Swaps Segregation Schedule as part of its proposed regulations to adopt capital requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants.
The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.10(g)(2) to provide that the Cleared Swaps Segregation Schedule is a public document. Regulation 1.10 currently provides that the Commission will treat the monthly Form 1-FR-FCM
Making the Cleared Swaps Segregation Schedule publicly available will benefit customers and potential customers by allowing them to review an FCM's compliance with its regulatory obligations and will provide a certain amount of detail as to how the FCM holds customer funds, which customers and potential customers will be able to assess from a risk perspective and also use to compare to other firms. This information, coupled with additional firm risk disclosures that the Commission is proposing in § 1.55 and discussed in detail in Section II.P below, will provide customers with greater transparency regarding the risks of entrusting their funds and engaging in transactions with particular FCMs. Customers also will be able to view the total amount of the targeted residual interest each FCM holds and to assess for themselves the adequacy of the targeted residual interest and whether the FCM holds funds in excess of the targeted residual interest.
The Commission also is proposing to amend several statements in the Form 1-FR-FCM. The Commission is proposing to amend the Statement of Financial Condition by adding a new line item 1.D. Line 1 currently separately details the amount of funds in segregation or separate accounts for futures customers and foreign futures or foreign option customers. Proposed line item 1.D. will set forth the amount of funds held by the FCM in segregated accounts for Cleared Swaps Customers. This amendment is necessary due to the adoption of the Part 22 regulations, which require the segregation of Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral and the proposed adoption of the Cleared Swaps Segregation Schedule as part of the Form 1-FR-FCM.
The Commission also is proposing to amend the Statement of Financial Condition by adding a new line item 22.F., which requires the separate disclosure of the FCM's liability to Cleared Swaps Customers. The Commission also is proposing to revise current line item 27.J. to require the FCM to disclose its obligation to retail forex customers. Currently, an FCM's obligation to retail forex customers is included with other miscellaneous liabilities and reported under current line item 27.J. “Other.” The separate reporting of an FCM's retail forex obligation will provide greater transparency on the Statement of Financial Condition regarding the firm's obligations to its retail counterparties in off-exchange foreign currency transactions, and is appropriate given the Commission's direct jurisdiction over such activities under section 2(c) of the Act when conducted by an FCM.
The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.10(b)(1)(ii) to require that an FCM submit its certified annual report to the Commission and to its DSRO within 60 days of its year-end date. Currently, an FCM is required to submit the annual certified financial statements within 90 days of the firm's year-end date, except for FCMs that are dually-registered as FCM/BDs, which are require to submit the certified annual report within 60 days of the year-end date under both Commission and SEC regulations. Therefore, the proposal will only impact FCMs that are not dually-registered as BDs.
The proposal will align the filing deadlines for both FCMs and dual registrant FCMs/BDs. The annual certified financial report is a key component of the Commission's and DSROs' financial surveillance program, as it represents that an independent entity has conducted an audit following U.S. generally accepted auditing standards for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements of the FCM. Requiring standalone FCMs to submit the certified financial statements within 60 days of the firm's year-end date will allow Commission and DSRO staff to review the financial statements on a more timely basis to identify and address accounting or auditing issues that may impact the financial condition of the FCM.
In addition, the Commission notes that, pursuant to § 3.3(f)(2), the annual report of an FCM's CCO must be furnished electronically to the Commission simultaneously with the submission of Form 1-FR-FCM, as required under § 1.10(b)(2)(ii); simultaneously with the FOCUS Report, as required under § 1.10(h); or simultaneously with the financial condition report, as required under section 4s(f) of the Act, as applicable. Given the 60-day deadline proposed herein, the Commission is proposing a conforming amendment to § 3.3(f)(2) to reflect the proposed 60-day deadline.
The Commission is proposing to add a new requirement in § 1.10(b)(5) to require each FCM to file with the Commission on a monthly basis its balance sheet leverage ratio. FCMs currently are required to file the same leverage information with the NFA on a monthly basis. The Commission does not expect the imposition of this regulation to have any significant impact on the FCMs as the ratio is calculated from existing reported balances and already provided to NFA.
The leverage ratio will provide information regarding the amount of assets supported by the FCM's capital base. The Commission views leverage information as an important element in assessing the financial condition of an FCM as a high degree of balance sheet leverage may indicate that the firm does not have the capital to support its investment decisions, particularly if such investments loose a significant amount of their value in a short period of time or require substantial margin payments or other payments to support.
The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.10(c)(2)(i) to require that all monthly unaudited Forms 1-FR-FCM or FOCUS Reports be filed electronically with the Commission. The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.10(c)(2)(i) to require an FCM to file its certified financial statement in electronic format.
FCMs currently file the monthly unaudited financial statements with the Commission using the WinJammer Online Filing System (“WinJammer”) electronic filing system, and the proposed amendments are simply codifying current practices.
The Commission also is proposing a technical amendment to § 1.10(c)(1). Regulation 1.10(c)(1) provides that any report or information required to be provided to the Commission by an IB or FCM will be considered filed when received by the Commission Regional office with jurisdiction over the state in which the FCM has its principal place of business. To ensure that reports are filed expeditiously with the correct Commission Regional office, the Commission's proposed amendment to § 1.10(c)(1) cross-references § 140.02, which sets forth the jurisdiction of each of the Commission's three Regional offices.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects the proposed amendments to § 1.10. Specifically, the Commission requests comments on the following questions:
• Should other schedules in the Form 1-FR-FCM be amended to provide additional information to the Commission and the FCM's SROs?
• The Commission is proposing to require FCMs to submit to the Commission and the firm's DSRO a monthly computation of the FCM's balance sheet leverage. The proposal is consistent with the leverage computation set forth in the rules of the NFA. Are there other measures of leverage that the Commission should consider adopting? Are there other financial statement ratios in addition to leverage that the Commission should consider requiring FCMs to submit to the Commission and DSROs?
Proposed § 1.11 requires each FCM that carries customer accounts
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 1.11 establishes definitions for the terms “Customer,” “Customer Account,” “Business Unit,” “Governing Body,” “Segregated Funds,” and “Senior Management.”
“Business Unit” is defined to clearly delineate the separation of the risk management unit required by the proposed rule from the other personnel of an FCM.
The term “Customer” is defined broadly to include futures customers (as defined in § 1.3) trading futures contracts or options on futures contracts listed on designated contract markets, 30.7 Customers (as proposed to be defined in § 30.1) trading futures contract or options on futures contracts listed on foreign contract markets, and Cleared Swaps Customers (as defined in § 22.1) engaging in cleared swap transactions.
The term “Customer Funds” is defined to mean funds deposited by futures customers, 30.7 Customers, and Cleared Swap Customers as margin or funds accruing to such customers from open futures or cleared swap transactions. Existing Commission regulations require FCMs to hold each of these types of customer deposited funds, as applicable, in separate accounts and to segregate such Customer Funds from the FCM's own funds and from each other type.
The term “Governing Body” is defined as the sole proprietor, if the FCM is a sole proprietorship; a general partner, if the FCM is a partnership; the board of directors, if the FCM is a corporation; and the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, the manager, the managing member, or those members vested with the management authority if the FCM is a limited liability company or limited partnership. “Senior Management” is defined to mean any officer or officers specifically granted the authority and responsibility to fulfill the requirements of senior management by the Governing Body. These definitions, as used in proposed § 1.11, are designed to ensure that there is accountability at the highest levels for the FCM's key internal controls and processes designed to protect the funds of the FCM's customers.
The term “Segregated Funds” is defined to mean money, securities, or other property held by a futures commission merchant in separate accounts pursuant to § 1.20 for futures customers, pursuant to § 22.2 for cleared swaps customers, and pursuant to § 30.7 for foreign futures and options customers. The definition makes clear that the requirements of § 1.11 applies to all customer funds that may be held by an FCM.
Proposed § 1.11(c)(4) requires FCMs to provide copies of the risk management policies and procedures to the Commission and the FCM's DSRO in order to allow the Commission and DSROs to monitor the status of risk management practices among FCMs. Submission of such policies and procedures to the Commission without further comment or action by the Commission or Commission staff should not be construed as an endorsement of the completeness or effectiveness of the risk management policies and procedures and no FCM should make a representation to the contrary. The Commission invites comments on the submission of risk management policies and procedures and, more generally, on whether the provisions of § 1.11 have achieved a sufficient level of detail for the purposes of designing a comprehensive risk management program.
Proposed § 1.11(e) provides for a non-exclusive list of the elements that must be a part of the risk management program of an FCM. Such policies and procedures should include: (1) identifying risks (including risks posed by affiliates, all lines of business of the FCM, and all other trading activity of the FCM) and setting of risk tolerance limits; (2) providing periodic risk exposure reports to senior management and the governing body; (3) operational risk controls; (4) capital controls; and (5) establishing a risk management program that takes into account risks associated with the safekeeping and segregation of customer funds.
In regard to customer funds, the Commission notes that FCMs are required by the Act and Commission regulations to segregate and safeguard funds deposited by customers for trading futures and/or swap contracts. Recent events have emphasized that it is essential that FCMs maintain adequate systems of internal controls, involving the participation and review of the firm's senior management, in order to properly safeguard customer funds. Accordingly, proposed § 1.11(e)(3)(i) requires that the risk management policies and procedures of an FCM related to the risks associated with safekeeping and segregation of customer funds must include: (1) The evaluation and monitoring of depositories;
Regarding the proposed requirement that FCMs establish and maintain an adequate targeted amount of excess funds in customer accounts, the Commission notes that FCMs currently deposit proprietary funds into both customer segregated accounts and Part 30 secured accounts as a buffer to minimize the possibility of the firm being in violation of its segregated and secured fund obligations at any time. Under the proposal, senior management of the FCM must perform appropriate due diligence in setting the amount of this buffer and must consider the nature of the FCM's business including the type and general creditworthiness of its customer base, the types of markets and products traded by the firm's customers, the proprietary trading activities of the FCM, the volatility and liquidity of the markets and products traded by the customers and the FCM, the FCM's own liquidity and capital needs, and historical trends in customer segregation and secured account funds balances, customer debits and margin deficits. The FCM also must reassess the adequacy of the targeted residual interest quarterly.
The Commission believes that each FCM must set the amount of excess segregated and secured funds required utilizing a quantitative and qualitative analysis that reasonably ensures compliance at all times with segregated and secured fund obligations. Such analysis must take into account the various factors that could affect segregated and secured balances, and must be sufficiently described in writing to allow the DSRO of the FCM and Commission to duplicate the calculations and test the assumptions. The analysis must provide a reasonable level of assurance that the excess is at an appropriate level for the FCM.
Finally, to ensure the effectiveness of a risk management program, § 1.11(e)(4) requires that the risk management program include a supervisory system that is reasonably designed to ensure that the risk management policies and procedures are diligently followed. Furthermore, § 1.11(f) requires an annual review and testing of the adequacy of each FCM's risk management program by internal audit staff or a qualified external, third party service.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of proposed § 1.11. Specifically, the Commission requests comment on the following:
• Should the Commission have different risk management requirements for FCMs based upon some measureable criteria, such as size of the firm or type of customers? How would the Commission design such criteria to distinguish between firms? Which elements in proposed § 1.11 should apply to smaller FCMs vs. larger FCMs? What elements should apply to all FCMs irrespective of the size of the firm?
• Does the proposed risk management program address the appropriate minimum elements that should be covered by an FCM risk management program?
• Regulation 3.3 requires the CCO of an FCM to provide an annual report to the Commission that must review each applicable requirement under the Act and Commission regulations, and with respect to each applicable requirement, identify the policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the requirement, and provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the policies and procedures.
• Should the risk management program require an FCM to conduct quarterly or periodic audits to detect any breach of the policies and procedures that address the proper segregation of customer funds?
• Should the Commission establish a phased-in compliance provision for § 1.11? If so, how long of a phase-in period should be provided? Should there be different phase-in periods for different provisions of the proposed regulation?
The regulatory notices required under § 1.12 are intended to provide the Commission and SROs with prompt notice of potential adverse conditions at FCMs or IBs that may indicate or lead to a threat to the financial condition of the firm or the protection of customer funds held by the FCM. In adopting § 1.12 in 1978, the Commission stated that the establishment of an early warning system was necessary because “[a] fundamental purpose of the Act is to protect the public from financially irresponsible FCMs who handle customer funds.”
Regulation 1.12 currently obligates FCMs and IBs to provide notice to the Commission and to the respective DSROs if certain specified reportable events occur. Reportable events include: failing to maintain the minimum level of required regulatory capital (§ 1.12 (a)); failing to maintain current books and records (§ 1.12(c)); and failing to comply with the requirements to properly segregate customer funds (§ 1.12(h)). The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.12 to include several additional reportable events and to revise the process for submitting reportable events to the Commission and DSROs.
Regulation 1.12(a) requires an FCM or IB that fails to maintain the minimum level of adjusted net capital required by § 1.17 to provide immediate notice to the Commission and to the entity's DSRO. The notice must include additional information to adequately reflect the FCM's or IB's current capital condition as of any date that the entity is undercapitalized.
The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.12(a) to explicitly provide that if the FCM or IB cannot compute or document its actual capital at the time it knows that it is undercapitalized, it must still provide the written notice required by § 1.12(a) immediately and cannot delay filing the notice until it has adequate information to compute its actual level of adjusted net capital. A purpose of the notice provision under § 1.12(a) is to provide the Commission and the DSROs with immediate notice of the undercapitalized condition of an FCM or IB. If an FCM or IB were to delay alerting the Commission that it was undercapitalized due to the fact that it could not accurately assess its capital condition, it would frustrate the intent of the notice provision. It is imperative that an FCM or IB provide immediate notice if the firm is undercapitalized. Upon the filing of a notice, Commission and SRO staff will contact the FCM or IB to obtain greater details of the financial condition of the firm, including information regarding its current financial condition or issues associated with the firm's inability to accurately determine its current financial condition.
Regulation 1.12(h) currently requires an FCM that fails to hold sufficient funds in segregated accounts to meet its obligations to futures customers, or that fails to hold sufficient funds in separate accounts for foreign futures or foreign options customers, to provide immediate notice to the Commission and to the FCM's DSRO. The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (h) to include an explicit requirement that an FCM provide immediate notice to the Commission and to its DSRO if the FCM fails to hold sufficient funds in segregated accounts for Cleared Swaps Customers to meet its obligation to such customers.
Commencing November 8, 2012, the compliance date for certain Commission Part 22 regulations, FCMs will be required under § 22.2 to hold a sufficient amount of funds in Cleared Swaps Customer Accounts to meet the Net Liquidating Equity of each Cleared Swaps Customer.
The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.12 by adding new paragraph (i) to require an FCM to provide notice whenever it discovers or is informed that it has invested funds held for customers in investments that are not permitted investments under § 1.25, or if the FCM holds permitted investments in a manner that is not in compliance with the provisions of § 1.25 (such as the investment concentration limits). The proposal will apply to funds held for futures customers, 30.7 Customers, and Cleared Swaps Customers.
The protection of customer funds is a core element of the Commission's regulatory program. FCMs are entrusted with a responsibility to use customer funds only for the benefit of the depositing customers.
Requiring an FCM to provide prompt notice of a § 1.25 violation will allow Commission and DSRO staff to assess whether customer funds are endangered and to work with the FCM to ensure that the impermissible investments are appropriately liquidated and customer funds remain intact. Commission and DSRO staff also will benefit from receiving notices of § 1.25 violations in that the notices will provide information regarding new investments that FCMs may engage in that are not permitted investments under § 1.25. Such information will be helpful for the Commission and DSRO in conducting reviews of other FCMs and in providing regulatory updates to the industry.
The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.12 to provide a new paragraph (j) that will require an FCM to provide immediate notice to the Commission and to the firm's DSRO if the FCM does not hold an amount of funds in segregated accounts for futures customers or for Cleared Swaps Customers, or if the FCM does not hold sufficient funds in separate accounts for 30.7 Customers, sufficient to meet the firm's targeted residual interest in one or more of these accounts as computed
The Commission also is proposing new paragraphs (k) and (l) for § 1.12. Paragraphs (k) and (l) will require an FCM to provide notice to the Commission and to the firm's DSRO in the event of a material adverse impact in the financial condition of the firm or a material change in the firm's operations. Proposed paragraph (k) will require an FCM to provide immediate notice if the FCM, its parent, or a material affiliate, experiences a material adverse impact to its creditworthiness or its ability to fund its obligations. Indications of a material adverse impact of an FCM's creditworthiness may include a bank or other financing entity withdrawing credit facilities, a credit rating downgrade, or the FCM being placed on “credit watch” by a credit rating agency. Proposed paragraph (l) will require an FCM to provide immediate notice of material changes in the operations of the firm, including: A change in senior management; the establishment or termination of a material line of business; a material change in the FCM's clearing arrangements; or a material change in the FCM's credit arrangements. Paragraph (l) is intended to provide the Commission with notice of material events, such as the departure of the FCM's CCO, CFO, or CEO.
As noted above, § 1.12 is intended to provide the Commission and DSROs with notice of potential issues that may impact the financial condition of an FCM or the safety of customer funds. The regulatory objective is for FCMs to provide material information to the Commission and DSROs as early as possible so that the Commission and DSROs can assess the information and communicate with the FCMs prior to a more serious issue developing that may impair the financial condition of the firms or the safety of customer funds. Proposed paragraphs (k) and (l) will provide the Commission and DSROs with notice of major events that will initiate a dialogue between the Commission, DSROs, and FCMs which will have the benefit of informing the Commission and DSROs of material events impacting FCMs. Such information would be used by the Commission and DSROs in setting the scope of the review and monitoring of the FCMs, including the determination of the risk of the firms for purposes of scheduling future examinations. Without paragraphs (k) and (l), the Commission and DSROs may not learn of material events at FCMs until the firms are subject to periodic examinations.
The Commission is proposing to add a new paragraph (m) to § 1.12 that will require an FCM that receives a notice, examination report, or any other correspondence from the SEC or a SRO to file a copy of such notice, examination report, or correspondence with the Commission. In order to perform comprehensive oversight of an FCM, the Commission and the DSROs need to receive prompt notice of any concern or adverse action taken by the SEC or a securities SRO. The protection of futures customers funds are not immune from issues that arise from the securities operations or business of a dual registrant FCM/BD. Requiring an FCM to provide prompt notice to the Commission and the firm's DSRO of any notice, examination report, or correspondence that the firm receives from the SEC or a securities SRO will allow the Commission and the DSRO to identify potential threats to the safety of customer funds.
The Commission is further proposing to amend the process that an FCM uses to file the notices required by § 1.12. Currently, § 1.12 requires an FCM to provide the Commission and DSROs with telephonic and facsimile notice in some situations, and to provide written notice by mail in other situations. An FCM also is permitted, but not required, to file notices and written reports with the Commission and with its DSRO using an electronic filing system in accordance with instructions issued by or approved by the Commission.
The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.12(n) to require that all notices and reports filed by an FCM with the Commission or with the FCM's DSRO must be in writing and submitted using an electronic filing system. Each FCM currently uses WinJammer to file regulatory notices with the Commission and with the firm's DSRO. The WinJammer system provides for the most effective mechanism for ensuring that regulatory notices are promptly received by the Commission and by the DSROs.
The amendments to §§ 1.12(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are necessary and technical in nature, and primarily revise internal cross-references to the filing requirements in § 1.12(n).
The Commission request comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to § 1.12. Specifically, the Commission requests comment on the following:
• Are there other reportable events that the Commission should consider adding to § 1.12 that would benefit the Commission and the DSROs in the monitoring of the financial and operating conditions of FCMs?
• Should the Commission consider removing any of the reportable events listed in § 1.12? If so, why?
• Should any of the reportable events be made public by the Commission, SROs, or FCMs? If so, which reportable events? What benefit would the public receive from the disclosure of the reportable events? What would be the costs of disclosing the reportable events to the FCMs? Are there any negative
• Are the reporting standards in proposed paragraphs (k) and (l) adequately detailed and objective so that an FCM can determine when there is a reportable event? If not, what standards should the Commission use to define a reportable event under paragraphs (k) and (l)?
Regulation 1.15 requires FCMs to submit certain risk assessment reports to the Commission. The risk assessment filings include FCM organizational charts; financial, operational, risk management policies, and systems maintained by the FCM; and fiscal year-end consolidated and consolidating financial information for the FCM and its highest level material affiliate.
The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.15(a)(4) to require each FCM that is subject to § 1.15 to submit its risk assessment information to the Commission electronically in accordance with instructions issued by the Commission. The Commission intends for FCMs to file the risk assessment materials using the WinJammer electronic filing system. The Commission requests comments on its proposed amendments to § 1.15.
Regulation 1.16 sets forth the qualifications a public accountant must possess in order to conduct audits of Commission registrants. Currently, a public accountant must be registered and in good standing under the laws of the place of the public accountant's principal office in order to conduct examinations of FCMs.
The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.16(b)(1) to require that the public accountant be registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) in addition to being in good standing with the relevant state licensing authorities. In addition, the public accountant must have undergone an examination by the PCAOB and any deficiencies noted during such examination must have been remediated to the satisfaction of the PCAOB. Regulation § 1.16(b)(4) also will impose an obligation on an FCM's governing body to ensure that a public accountant is qualified to perform an audit of the FCM by assessing the firm's experience in auditing FCMs, the firm's experience and knowledge of the Act and Commission regulations, and the depth and experience of the firm's auditing staff.
The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.16(c)(2) to require a public accountant to state in the audit opinion whether the audit was conducted in accordance with U.S. GAAS after full consideration of the auditing standards adopted by the PCAOB. Currently, all audits of the certified financial statements of FCMs must be performed under U.S. GAAS. However, as the Commission is now proposing that certified public accountants must be registered with the PCAOB, it is necessary to also require that the auditing standards promulgated by the PCAOB be considered and adhered to where applicable. PCAOB requires auditors opining on a public company financial statements to comply with all applicable auditing standards, including PCAOB standards; whereas U.S. GAAS is required for the audits of non-public companies.
In 2003, the PCAOB adopted existing U.S. GAAS as interim standards, subject to periodic revision as the PCAOB deemed necessary. Since that time, the PCAOB has issued its own auditing standards in areas of the audit in which differentiated audit procedures or reporting requirements have been considered necessary. These areas largely pertain to audits of internal control over financial reporting as well as reports on those controls, audit documentation and engagement quality review. Generally speaking, the most significant difference between U.S. GAAS and PCAOB standards relates to the auditor's testing of internal controls over financial reporting which are meant to cover the auditor's opinion on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 404 report on internal controls. From a regulatory perspective, an auditor's focus on internal controls is critical to helping to ensure that material errors in financial or regulatory reporting are identified on a timely basis, and the PCAOB standards provide more focus on the auditing standards in this regard. It should also be noted that auditors of BDs are now required to register with the PCAOB and follow PCAOB standards; thus, any dually-registered FCM/BDs will already have to comply with this requirement.
The proposed amendments to §§ 1.16(b)(1) and (c)(2) are designed to reasonably ensure the quality and competence of public accountants that engage in the audits of FCMs. FCMs are sophisticated financial market participants that are subject to extensive regulation. In addition, the complexity of FCM audits is increased substantially when a firm is engaged in proprietary trading or dually-registered as an FCM/BD. Public accountants must be knowledgeable regarding the business operations, regulatory obligations and financial reporting requirements for FCMs, and the governing body of the FCM must ensure that the public accountant has the knowledge, experience, and resources to conduct the audits. Also, requiring the public accountant to be registered with PCAOB will ensure that the public accountant is subject to periodic reviews to assess its compliance with industry standards.
While the Commission does not expect the proposed PCAOB registration requirement to have a material impact on FCMs, it recognizes that not all FCMs currently use CPAs that are registered with the PCAOB or CPAs that have been subject to an examination by the PCAOB. Currently, 111 of the 116 FCMs are examined by CPAs that are registered with the PCAOB. Also, 12 CPAs that are registered with the PCAOB have not yet been subject to a PCAOB examination. These 12 CPAs conduct examinations of 20 FCMs. Therefore, currently 25 of the 116 FCMs would not satisfy the proposed requirement that only PCAOB-registered CPAs that have been subject to at least one PCAOB review may be engaged to conduct an examination of the FCM's financial statements.
The Commission is proposing a technical amendment to § 1.16 to revise the definition of the term “customer.” Regulation 1.16 details the standards that a public accountant must meet in conducting a financial examination of an FCM. Currently, § 1.16(a)(4) defines the term “customer” to include futures customers, Cleared Swaps Customers, and foreign futures or foreign options customers. The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.16(a)(4) to revise the definition of customer to replace the term “foreign futures or foreign options customer” with the term “30.7 Customer” to make the provision consistent with the amendments contained in Part 30 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission also is proposing to amend paragraph (f)(1)(i)(C) of § 1.16 to provide that any filing of a notice of the extension of time to file the audited financial reports must be submitted by the FCM to the Commission using an electronic filing system. The Commission intends for FCMs to use the WinJammer electronic filing system.
The Commission also is proposing to remove the requirement from § 1.16(c)(1) that annual financial reports contain the manual signature of the public accountant. Under the proposed amendments to § 1.10 discussed above, FCMs will be filing annual financial reports electronically, which will preclude the use of manual signature.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of proposed § 1.16. Specifically, the Commission request comment on the following:
• A purpose of the requirement that FCMs engage only CPAs that are registered with the PCAOB and have been reviewed by the PCAOB is to enhance the quality of the audit examination conducted by CPAs. Does the PCAOB registration and examination process enhance the quality of FCM audit engagements?
• Are there viable alternatives that the Commission should consider to enhance the quality of CPA FCM examinations in lieu of PCAOB registration and examination?
• Should the Commission consider allowing the non-PCAOB registered CPAs or PCAOB-registered CPAs that have not been subject to a PCAOB review to contractually engage for a peer review from a qualified CPA who is aware of the reason for the peer review as a short-term measure to allow the non-compliant CPAs to continue to conduct audits of FCMs?
• If the Commission adopts the PCAOB registration and examination requirement, how should the Commission implement the effective or compliance dates? What factors should the Commission consider in setting an effective date or compliance date for this provision?
The Commission is proposing to amend § 1.17 by adding a new provision that will authorize the Commission to require an FCM to transfer its customer business and cease operating as an FCM if the FCM cannot immediately certify to the Commission, and demonstrate with verifiable evidence, that the FCM has sufficient access to liquidity to continue operating as a going concern. The Commission also is proposing to amend § 1.17 to permit an FCM that is not a dually-registered FCM/BD to develop the framework proposed by the SEC, as set forth below, to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures for determining creditworthiness, and upon a determination that a particular type of security has minimal credit risk, to apply lower deductions to such securities in computing the FCM's adjusted net capital.
Section 4f(b) of the Act provides that no person may be registered as an FCM unless such person meets the minimum financial requirements that the Commission has established by regulation to ensure that an FCM meets its obligations at all times as an FCM to its customer and to market participants, including DCOs. The Commission's minimum capital requirements for FCMs are set forth in § 1.17 and generally require an FCM to maintain adjusted net capital equal to or in excess of the greater of: $1 million; 8 percent of the risk maintenance margin required on customer and non-customer futures and options on futures positions carried by the FCM;
Commission Regulation 1.17(a)(4) currently provides that an FCM must cease operating as an FCM and transfer its customers positions to another FCM if the FCM is not in compliance with the minimum capital requirements, or is unable to demonstrate its compliance with the minimum capital requirements. The FCM, however, can initiate customer trades for liquidation purposes only. Regulation 1.17(a)(4) further provides that the Commission or the FCM's DSRO may grant the FCM up to a maximum of 10 days to come back into compliance with the minimum capital requirements without having to cease operating as an FCM or transferring customer accounts.
The Commission is proposing to add an additional clause to § 1.17(a)(4), which will specify that the Commission may request certification in writing from an FCM that it has sufficient liquidity to continue operating as a going concern, and that if such certification is not provided immediately or the FCM is not able to demonstrate its access to liquidity with verifiable evidence, the FCM must transfer all customer accounts and immediately cease doing business as an FCM. The proposed liquidity provision is intended to cover circumstances that require immediate attention. The proposal is not intended to provide a mechanism for the Commission to require FCMs to demonstrate that they are a going concern for an extended period of time into the future. Rather, the purpose of the proposal is to provide the Commission with a means of addressing exigent circumstances by requiring an FCM to produce a written analysis showing the sources and uses of funds over a short period of time not to exceed one week.
The Commission believes this clause provides additional protection to customers in the event of an imminent liquidity drain on a registrant, which may not be immediately reflected in its accounting or regulatory capital business records. Market events or other external indicators may come to the attention of the Commission which suggest an FCM is under severe liquidity stress, which demonstrates that although the firm is still able to demonstrate compliance with required regulatory capital, conditions are such that it will not be able to meet liquidity requirements out a period of time not to exceed one week. This provision will allow the Commission to essentially require an FCM on demand to be able to certify its access to liquidity sufficient to continue operating as a going concern for a period not to exceed one week. The inability of the FCM to satisfy this requirement will allow the Commission to direct the FCM to transfer customer accounts and cease doing business as an FCM.
The Commission believes the ability to certify, and if requested, demonstrate with verifiable evidence, sufficient liquidity to operate as a going concern to meet immediate financial obligations, is a minimum financial requirement necessary to ensure an FCM will continue to meet its obligations as a registrant as set forth under § 4(f)(b) of the Act. The certification required must satisfy the same oath or affirmation requirements as those required for the submission of monthly financial reports under § 1.10(d)(4), to ensure that it is made by an appropriate individual and that it is in writing under oath of the individual that it is true and correct to the best knowledge and belief of such individual. If a registrant certifies to the Commission its access to liquidity, but is not able to demonstrate with sufficient evidence such liquidity (for example such evidence may include confirmations by third parties of access
Regulation 1.17 further requires an FCM to take a haircut against the value of securities the FCM holds as investments of customer funds under § 1.25. A primary purpose of these haircuts is to provide a margin of safety against losses that might be incurred by the FCM as a result of market fluctuations in the prices of, or lack of liquidity in, the security positions.
For futures positions, an FCM that is a member of the clearing organization where the positions are cleared is required to take a haircut equal to the margin required by the clearing organization on such futures positions.
The SEC capital rule currently applies a general or “default” haircut of 15 percent of the market value of commercial paper, convertible debt instruments, and nonconvertible debt instruments if the securities are readily marketable, and 100 percent of the market value if the securities are not readily marketable. The SEC capital rule also provides for a lower haircut for commercial paper, convertible debt instruments, and nonconvertible debt instruments if the securities are rated in higher rating categories by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”). To receive the benefit of a reduced haircut on commercial paper, the commercial paper must be rated in one of the three highest rating categories by at least two NRSROs. To receive the benefit of a reduced haircut on a nonconvertible debt security or a convertible debt security, the security must be rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two NRSROs.
The SEC has proposed rule amendments to implement the Dodd-Frank Act requirement to remove references to credit ratings in its regulations and substitute a standard for creditworthiness deemed appropriate, including a proposed amendment to its net capital rule for BDs at 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
Under the SEC proposal, the BD's written policies and procedures may assess a security's credit risk using the following factors, to the extent appropriate, instead of exclusively relying on NRSROs ratings:
• Credit spreads (
• Securities-related research (
• Internal or external credit risk assessments (
• Default statistics (
• Inclusion on an index (
• Priorities and enhancements (
• Price, yield and/or volume (
• Asset class-specific factors (
A BD that maintains written policies and procedures and determines that the credit risk of a security is minimal is permitted under the SEC proposal to apply the lesser haircut requirement currently specified in the SEC capital rule for commercial paper (
For FCMs that are dually-registered as BDs, any changes adopted by the SEC to these securities haircuts will be applicable under § 1.17(c)(5)(v) unless the Commission specifically provides an alternate treatment for FCMs.
Regulation 1.17 also requires an FCM to reduce its capital (
Regulation 1.17(c)(5)(ix) requires an FCM to take a capital charge for noncustomer and omnibus accounts that are undermargined for two business days after the margin call is issued. The capital requirement for undermargined noncustomer and omnibus accounts is the amount of funds necessary to restore the account to the maintenance margin level.
For purposes of these Commission regulations, a margin call is presumed to be issued by the FCM the day after an account becomes undermargined. Thus, if a customer's account is undermargined at the close of business on Monday, the FCM will issue a margin call on Tuesday, and the regulation requires the FCM to take an undermargined capital charge at the close of business on Friday if the margin call is not met. For noncustomer and omnibus accounts that were undermargined at the close of business on Monday, the FCM would take a capital charge as of the close of business on Thursday.
The Commission is proposing to amend §§ 1.17(c)(5)(viii) and (ix) to require an FCM to take capital charges for undermargined customer, noncustomer, and omnibus account that are undermargined for more than one business day after a margin call is issued. Therefore, an FCM will impose a capital charge as of the close of business on Wednesday for any customer, noncustomer, or omnibus account that did not fully satisfy a margin call that is issued by the FCM on Tuesday for an account that was undermargined as of the close of business on Monday.
The timely collection of margin is a critical component of an FCM's risk management program and is intended to ensure that an FCM holds sufficient funds deposited by account owners to meet potential obligations to a DCO. As guarantor of the financial performance of the customer, noncustomer, and omnibus accounts that it carries, the FCM is financially responsible if the owner of an account cannot meet its margin obligations to the FCM and ultimately to a DCO. The timeframe for meeting margin calls currently provided in §§ 1.17(c)(5)(viii) and (ix) may have been appropriate when the capital rules were adopted in the 1970s when the use of checks and the mail system were more prevalent for depositing margin with an FCM. The Commission believes, however, that in today's markets, with the increasing use of technology, 24-hour-a-day trading, and the use of wire transfers to meet margin obligations, that the timeframe for taking a capital charge should be reduced both to incentivize FCMs to exercise prudent risk management and to strengthen the financial protection of FCMs, their customers, and the clearing systems by requiring the FCMs to reserve capital for undermargined customer, noncustomer, and omnibus accounts that fail to meet a margin call on a timely basis.
The Commission also is proposing, as discussed in Section II.I below, to require an FCM to maintain a residual interest in customer segregated accounts in an amount sufficient to cover all customer accounts that are undermargined as of the close of business on the previous trading day, thereby ensuring that residual interest in customer segregated accounts exceeds the sum of outstanding margin calls for customers, and that the funds of one customer are not used to margin or guarantee the positions of another customer. The FCM may only maintain as residual interest cash and assets that qualify as permitted investments under § 1.25. Margin deficits will be calculated as enough to restore the customer's account equity to the maintenance margin requirement on the account.
The Commission also is proposing technical amendments to certain definitions in § 1.17 to reflect proposed changes discussed in Section II.R below concerning the § 30.7 secured amount calculation. The § 1.17(b)(2) and (7) definitions of the terms “customer” and “customer account” are being proposed to be amended, the first to include “30.7 Customer” (which is a new definition being proposed in § 30.1 to include foreign domiciled persons) and the second to remove surplus language due to the revised definition of “customer.”
The Commission requests comment on the proposed amendments to § 1.17. Specifically, the Commission requests comment on the following:
• Does the proposed amendment to require an FCM to certify that it has sufficient liquidity to operate as a going concern provide a sufficient and objective standard for FCMs to assess whether they are in compliance with the provision? Are there alternative standards or approaches that the Commission should consider to meet its objective of ensuring that an FCM has sufficient liquidity to meet its pending short-term obligations so that customer funds would not be put at risk in the event of the insolvency of the FCM?
• Should the Commission consider alternative timeframes for the imposition of a capital charge for undermargined accounts?
The Commission is proposing to reorganize the structure of § 1.20 by providing additional paragraph subdivisions to the existing specific requirements, applying headings to the regulation to assist in the reading and understanding of the regulation. The Commission also is proposing to add new provisions designed to enhance the protection of customer funds.
Regulation 1.20 implements the provisions of section 4d(a)(2) of the Act, which provides, in relevant part, that an FCM must: (1) Separately account for all futures customer funds and segregate such funds as belonging to its futures customers; (2) not commingle futures customer funds with the FCM's proprietary funds; (3) not use the funds of one futures customer to margin or extend credit to any person other than to the futures customer that deposited the funds; and (4) deposit futures customer funds in any bank, trust company or DCO.
Paragraph (a) of § 1.20 sets forth the general principle under section 4d(a)(2) of the Act by requiring an FCM to separately account for all futures customer funds and to segregate such funds from the FCM's proprietary funds by depositing them under an account name that clearly shows that the funds are futures customer funds and segregated as required by the Act. Paragraph (g)(1) applies the same general principle to futures customer funds received by a DCO from its members.
Paragraph (a) also requires each FCM to perform appropriate due diligence on all depositories in accordance with its risk management policies and procedures required under proposed
Paragraph (a) of § 1.20 also provides that an FCM must be in compliance with its segregation obligations at all times. It is not sufficient for an FCM to be in compliance at the end of a business day, but to fail to meet its segregation obligations on an intra-day basis. If an FCM was not in compliance with the segregation requirements on an intra-day basis that would necessarily mean that the FCM was using the funds of one customer to margin positions of another customer or to cover losses of another customer.
Paragraph (b) of § 1.20 lists the permitted depositories for futures customer funds as any bank, trust company, derivatives clearing organization, or another FCM. These permitted depositories are listed in existing § 1.20 and the Commission is not proposing to amend the list. Proposed paragraph (g)(2) lists the permitted depositories for futures funds received by a DCO as any bank or trust company, and clarifies that the term “bank” includes a Federal Reserve Bank. This proposed amendment implements section 806(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that a Federal Reserve Bank may establish and maintain a deposit account for a “financial market utility” (in the present case, a DCO) that has been designated as systemically important.
Paragraph (c) provides that an FCM may hold futures customer funds in depositories outside of the United States only in accordance with the current provisions of § 1.49. Paragraph (g)(3) sets forth the same limitation for a DCO. Regulation 1.49 currently permits an FCM or DCO to hold futures customer funds in certain foreign depositories provided that the FCM or DCO holds sufficient funds in the United States to meet its U.S. dollar-denominated obligations to futures customers. Regulation 1.49 also requires specific futures customer authorization for an FCM or DCO to hold futures customer funds in certain foreign jurisdictions. The Commission is not proposing to amend § 1.49 as part of this rulemaking.
Proposed § 1.20(e) prohibits an FCM from commingling futures customer funds with the FCM's proprietary funds, and prohibits the FCM from commingling funds deposited by futures customers with funds deposited by 30.7 Customers or Cleared Swaps Customers. Regulation 1.20(e), however, does permit an FCM to commingle the funds of multiple futures customers in a single account or accounts for operational convenience. Similarly, proposed § 1.20(g)(5) prohibits a DCO from commingling futures customer funds with the DCO's proprietary funds or with any proprietary account of any of its clearing members, and prohibits the DCO from commingling funds held for futures customers with funds deposited by clearing members on behalf of their Cleared Swaps Customers. DCOs would be permitted to commingle the funds of multiple futures customers in a single account or accounts for operational convenience.
Proposed § 1.20(f) restricts an FCM's use of customer funds. An FCM is prohibited from using one futures customer's funds to margin or secure another futures customer's positions. An FCM also is prohibited from using a futures customer's funds to extend credit to any other person. The FCM also may obligate futures customers' funds to a DCO or another FCM solely to purchase, margin, or guarantee futures and options positions of futures customers.
The Commission is proposing a new paragraph (h) which states that all futures customer funds deposited with a bank or trust company must be available for immediate withdrawal upon demand by the FCM or DCO. Paragraph (h) codifies a long-standing interpretation of the Commission's Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight and predecessor divisions derived from an administration determination by the Commission's predecessor, the Commodity Exchange Authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• The Commission is proposing a new paragraph (i), which mirrors what was recently adopted in Part 22 for Cleared Swaps Customers, by providing more detail implementing the Net Liquidating Equity Method of calculating segregation requirements. In addition, because a customer may have Net Liquidating Equity (
• Will this proposal serve to increase the protections to customer funds in the event of an FCM bankruptcy?
• To what extent would this proposal increase costs to FCMs and/or futures customers?
• To what extent would this proposal benefit futures customers and/or FCMs?
• To what extent would this proposal increase or mitigate market risk?
• To what extent would this proposal lead to FCMs requiring customers to provide margin for their trades before placing them?
• To what extent is this likely to lead to a re-allocation of costs from customers with excess margin to undermargined customers?
• For purposes of margin deficit calculations, should the Commission
In addition to the foregoing, the Commission also is proposing to revise requirements regarding the written acknowledgment letter that an FCM or DCO is required to obtain from a depository holding futures customer funds. Regulation 1.20 currently requires an FCM or DCO to obtain a written acknowledgment from each depository, unless the depository is a DCO that has rules approved by the Commission providing for the segregation of customer funds. The written acknowledgment must state that the depository was informed that the futures customer funds deposited belong to futures customers and are being held in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Commission regulations.
The Commission previously proposed amendments to the acknowledgment letter regulations. On February 20, 2009, the Commission published proposed amendments to §§ 1.20, 1.26, and 30.7 for public comment (the “Original Proposal”).
In light of the comments on the Original Proposal, the Commission determined to re-propose the amendments with several changes made in response to comments (the “Revised Proposal”).
The Commission received nine comment letters on the Revised Proposal.
The Commission is proposing revised amendments to the Acknowledgment Letters in this release to address several issues that have arisen as a result of the recent MF Global and Peregrine failures and the adverse impact on customers that had funds on deposit with these FCMs. The additional amendments are discussed below. The Commission also has revised the Acknowledgment Letters to address comments to the Revised Proposal. These revisions are discussed immediately below.
Under the Revised Proposal, an FCM or DCO would be required to obtain a new Acknowledgment Letter within 60 days of changes in the name of any party to the Acknowledgment Letter or changes to the account number(s) under which customer funds are held. FIA stated that it is unduly burdensome to require the parties to execute a new Acknowledgment Letter in the event of a party changing its name within 60 days of the event.
The Commission has determined to add to the Template Letter the “binding effect” language as proposed by FIA, as this language will ensure the continued applicability of the Acknowledgment Letter in the event of a name change to the parties. The Commission, however, is proposing to require that FCMs and DCOs file new Acknowledgment Letters in the event of a name, address, or other change as specified in the proposed rule because the Commission believes it is important to maintain current and accurate Acknowledgment Letters to provide clear legal status of the customer account, which will better protect customers in the event of a dispute regarding the legal status of the account. The Commission is proposing a 120-day time period for an FCM to obtain new Acknowledgment Letters. Given the use of the Template Letter, which is not open to negotiation, and electronic filing, the Commission believes that 120 days is a sufficient period of time for FCMs and DCOs to obtain and file the new Acknowledgment Letters.
Regulation 1.20 provides that customer funds, when deposited with a depository, “shall be deposited under an account name that clearly identifies them as such and shows that they are segregated as required by the Act and [Part 1 of the CFTC Regulations].” FIA noted that the account naming convention used in the proposed forms of Template Letters
The Commission has modified the proposed Template Letters to provide an option to add the words “CFTC Regulated FCM Customer Omnibus Account” to describe such accounts when applicable. In addition, the Commission is proposing that if the name of the account as set forth in the Template Letter is too long for a depository's system to include all characters, the depository may abbreviate the name in order to accommodate its system, provided that (i) it remains clear that the account is a CFTC regulated segregated/secured account held for the benefit of customers (
Four of the commenters to the Revised Proposal addressed the need for the Commission to establish specific standards with respect to the notice, authentication and instruction protocol regarding Commission instructions for the immediate release of funds from a Customer Account.
The FRB Chicago pointed out that, as the Acknowledgment Letters will have been filed electronically with the Commission, the Commission will know all of the Depositories that have signed such letters, their location, and basic contact information. In light of this, the FRB Chicago suggests that the Commission could establish for each depository a basic but unique authentication identifier. The Commission believes this suggestion has merit, and it will consider implementing this type of data collection and identification as it works to implement the operational aspects of the electronic filing of Acknowledgment Letters.
JP Morgan suggests that the Acknowledgment Letter include a notice provision with contact information for the depository so that the Commission has information on how best to contact the depository. The Commission agrees with this suggestion and has revised the Template Letters to indicate where depository contact information may be inserted as optional information. The Commission recognizes that such information may be subject to frequent change and, therefore, at this time, the Commission is not requiring that an amended Acknowledgment Letter be filed in the event there are changes to such contact information.
Katten asserts that Depositories face legal uncertainty with respect to their release of customer funds in reliance on instructions from the Commission. Katten states that the Commission's reluctance to define “proper notice” or “reasonable measures” imposes on Depositories the conflicting obligations (i) to the Commission, to release customer funds “immediately upon proper notice,” and (ii) to its customer FCM, to take “reasonable measures” first to assure that such notice was “duly authorized.”
With respect to due authorization, Katten requests that the Commission reconsider its decision to permit an instruction to transfer customer funds to be made orally, with written confirmation to follow. Katten believes that the depository's obligation to take “reasonable measures” may require it to await written confirmation in any event. In addition, Katten believes that the proposed amendments to §§ 1.20, 1.26, 30.7 and 140.91 do not limit the identity of the Commission officers and employees that may issue a notice to a depository or the process that must be followed before such a notice is issued. Katten submits that a depository would have a reasonable basis to conclude that an instruction to transfer customer funds was duly authorized if the depository could be assured that any instruction to transfer customer funds would be issued only by the Director of the Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight (or the Director's designee).
With respect to a “duly authorized officer or employee of the CFTC,” the Commission has determined to provide that any such instruction to transfer customer funds may be made by the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk (or the Director's designee), or by the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (or the Director's designee). Accordingly, the Template Letter now specifies that such instructions may only be given by the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk (or any successor division), the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (or any successor division), or the designees of such Directors under delegated authority.
The Commission does not believe, as asserted by Katten, that “reasonable measures” may require the depository to await written confirmation. For example, due to the nature of the
With respect to the release of customer funds “immediately upon proper notice,” Katten commented that it appreciates the Commission's recognition of the potential practical obstacles to immediate release (
After considering these comments, the Commission is proposing to retain the use of the word “immediately” in the Template Letter regarding instructions to a depository for release of customer funds. First, in response to FIA's comment, the Commission clarifies that the use of its authority to require the immediate release of customer funds would be in exceptional circumstances. As stated in the Revised Proposal, “[t]he Commission would issue such an instruction only when, in the judgment of the Commission, it is necessary to do so for the protection of customer funds. For example, the prospective insolvency of the FCM could prompt an instruction from the Commission to release the customer funds.”
CME believes that the use of an integration clause (
FIA agrees with the CME's comment that the scope of the “merger clause” in the Template Letters should be narrowed to make clear that these clauses do not invalidate the terms of other agreements that may have been entered into by the parties and that do not conflict with the Template Letters. The FRB Chicago also believes that this provision should be narrowed so that a bank's standard account opening agreements, corporate resolutions and other agreements incorporated by reference should govern the remainder of the account relationship, but